Cited by 141Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Placebo Effect

Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement Reduces Pain Attentional Bias in Chronic Pain Patients

Garland, Eric L., Howard, Matthew O.·2013·Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Abstract

Background Chronic pain involves hypervigilance for pain-related stimuli. Selective attention to pain-related stimuli, known as pain attentional bias (AB), can exacerbate chronic pain, prolong suffering, and undermine quality of life. The aim of this study was to determine if a multimodal mindfulness-oriented intervention could significantly reduce pain AB among chronic pain patients receiving opioid analgesics. Methods A total of 67 chronic pain patients were randomized to an 8-week Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) intervention or a social support group intervention and began treatment. A dot probe task was used to measure pain AB. Primary outcomes were pain AB scores for cues presented for 2,000 and 200 ms. Results Prior to intervention, participants exhibited a significant bias towards pain-related cues presented for 2,000 ms, but no bias for cues presented for 200 ms. A statistically significant time × intervention condition interaction was observed for 2,000 ms pain AB, such that participants in MORE evidenced significantly reduced posttreatment pain AB relative to pretreatment levels, whereas no significant pre-post treatment changes in pain AB were observed for support group participants. Decreases in pain AB were associated with increased perceived control over pain and attenuated reactivity to distressing thoughts and emotions. Conclusion Study findings provide the first indication that a mindfulness-oriented intervention may reduce pain AB among adul…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000348868

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garland, E. L., & Howard, M. O.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2013
Volume
82
Issue
5
Pages
311-318
ISSN
  • 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0348
OpenAlex
W1967135006
Cited by
141
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
chronic pain, Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement, mindfulness-based interventions, opioid analgesics, dot-probe task, non-pharmacological pain management, prescription opioid misuse
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Analgesics, Opioid, Anxiety, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Quality of Life, Reaction Time, Models, Statistical, Intention to Treat Analysis, Pain Perception, Chronic Pain, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review