Psychological flexibility in migraine: A study of pain acceptance and values-based action
Abstract
Background Studies of musculoskeletal pain patients confirm that acceptance of pain and values-based action are strong predictors of pain-related disability and that interventions fostering "psychological flexibility" confer positive outcomes. However, data on these processes in migraine remain limited. This cross-sectional study examined relations between components of psychological flexibility and headache among treatment-seeking migraineurs. Methods A total of 103 adults (M age = 41.5 (11.9) years; 88.2% female) with ICHD-confirmed migraine (71.8% episodic, 28.2% chronic) across three clinics completed measures of psychological flexibility and headache-related disability. Hierarchical regressions quantified relations between acceptance/values-based action and headache variables after first controlling for pain severity and gender. Results Acceptance of pain and values-based action accounted for 10% of unique variance in headache severity (ΔR(2) p = 0.006) and up to 20% in headache-related disability (ΔR(2) ps = 0.02 and Conclusions Paralleling results from the broader chronic pain literature, pain acceptance and values-based action play significant roles in headache pain and disability. Further study of interventions targeting these processes may enhance existing treatments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Higher psychological flexibility facet levels, particularly headache acceptance, values-clarification, and committed actions, are associated with changes in headache-related disability, daily functioning, quality of life, and distress.
“are associated with changes in headache-related disability, daily functioning, quality of life, and distress.”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Primary Headache Sufferers: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Efficacy (2021) · cites this paper as [20]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 34 · Cited by 37
- Authors
- Foote, H. W., Hamer, J. D., Roland, M. M., Landy, S. R., & Smitherman, T. A.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi, USA
- University of Mississippi (US)
- Oxford Neurology Clinic, USA
- Wesley Neurology and Headache Clinic, USA
- Corresponding author
- Smitherman, Todd A
- Venue
- Cephalalgia
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-06-10
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 317-324
- ISSN
- 0333-1024 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2982
- OpenAlex
- W2337377449
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 2.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cephalalgia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- migraine, psychological flexibility, pain acceptance, values-based action, headache-related disability, headache severity, headache frequency, chronic migraine, episodic migraine, MIDAS, acceptance and commitment therapy
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Migraine Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Chronic Pain
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
