Cited by 63Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPain Management and Treatment

Novel three-day, community-based, nonpharmacological group intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain (COPERS): a randomised clinical trial

Open access
Taylor, Stephanie J. C., Carnes, Dawn, Homer, Kate, Kahan, Brennan C., Hounsome, Natalia, Eldridge, Sandra, Spencer, Anne, Pincus, Tamar +2 more·2016·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for chronic pain is often limited, and there is growing concern about the adverse effects of these treatments, including opioid dependence. Nonpharmacological approaches to chronic pain may be an attractive alternative or adjunctive treatment. We describe the effectiveness of a novel, theoretically based group pain management support intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) trial across 27 general practices and community musculoskeletal services in the UK. We recruited 703 adults with musculoskeletal pain of at least 3 mo duration between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012, and randomised participants 1.33:1 to intervention (403) or control (300). Intervention participants were offered a participative group intervention (COPERS) delivered over three alternate days with a follow-up session at 2 wk. The intervention introduced cognitive behavioural approaches and was designed to promote self-efficacy to manage chronic pain. Controls received usual care and a relaxation CD. The primary outcome was pain-related disability at 12 mo (Chronic Pain Grade [CPG] disability subscale); secondary outcomes included the CPG disability subscale at 6 mo and the following measured at 6 and 12 mo: anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), pain acceptance (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire), social integration (Health Education Impact Questionnaire social integration and support subscale), pain-related self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), pain intensity (CPG pain intensity subscale), the census global health question (2011 census for England and Wales), health utility (EQ-5D-3L), and health care resource use. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, accounted for clustering by course in the intervention arm, and used multiple imputation for missing or incomplete primary outcome data. The mean age of participants was 59.9 y, with 81% white, 67% female, 23% employed, 85% with pain for at least 3 y, and 23% on strong opioids. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were common (baseline mean HADS scores 7.4 [standard deviation 4.1] and 9.2 [4.6], respectively). Overall, 282 (70%) intervention participants met the predefined intervention adherence criterion. Primary outcome data were obtained from 88% of participants. There was no significant difference between groups in pain-related disability at 6 or 12 mo (12 mo: difference -1.0, intervention versus control, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.0), pain intensity, or the census global health question. Anxiety, depression, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, and social integration were better in the intervention group at 6 mo; at 12 mo, these differences remained statistically significant only for depression (-0.7, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2) and social integration (0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). Intervention participants received more analgesics than the controls across the 12 mo. The total cost of the course per person was £145 (US$214). The cost-utility analysis showed there to be a small benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.0325, 95% CI -0.0074 to 0.0724), and on the cost side the intervention was a little more expensive than usual care (i.e., £188 [US$277], 95% CI -£125 [-US$184] to £501 [US$738]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5,786 (US$8,521) per QALY. Limitations include the fact that the intervention was relatively brief and did not include any physical activity components. CONCLUSIONS: While the COPERS intervention was brief, safe, and inexpensive, with a low attrition rate, it was not effective for reducing pain-related disability over 12 mo (primary outcome). For secondary outcomes, we found sustained benefits on depression and social integration at 6 and 12 mo, but there was no effect on anxiety, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, pain intensity, or the census global health question at 12 mo. There was some evidence that the intervention may be cost-effective based on a modest difference in QALYs between groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry 24426731.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002040

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Smith BH, Torrance N. Epidemiology of chronic pain In: McQuay HJ, Kalso E, Moore RA, editors. Systematic reviews in pain research: methodology refined. Seattle: IASP Press; 2008 pp. 247– 274.
  2. [15]Ogden J. Health psychology: a textbook Maidenhead (United Kingdom): Open University Press; 2012.
  3. [40]Joint Formulary Committee. British national formulary 62 edition London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor, S. J. C., Carnes, D., Homer, K., Kahan, B. C., Hounsome, N., Eldridge, S., Spencer, A., Pincus, T., Rahman, A., & Underwood, M.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Stephanie J. C.
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2016-06-14
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
e1002040
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2309126213
Cited by
63
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-0707-10189)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic musculoskeletal pain, non-pharmacological pain management, cognitive behavioral therapy, pain self-efficacy, pain-related disability, pain acceptance, anxiety and depression, social integration, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, community-based intervention, general practice, opioid use disorder, copers, EQ-5D-3L, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Community Health Services, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Chronic Pain, Musculoskeletal 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