CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

A randomized controlled pilot study on mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for unipolar depression in patients with chronic pain

Open access
de Jong, Marasha, Peeters, Frenk, Gard, Tim, Ashih, Heidi, Doorley, Jim, Walker, Rosemary, Rhoades, Laurie, Kulich, Ronald J. +7 more·2018·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
DOI 10.4088/jcp.15m10160PMC PMC6020018
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain is a disabling illness, often comorbid with depression. We performed a randomized controlled pilot study on mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) targeting depression in a chronic pain population. METHOD: Participants with chronic pain lasting ≥ 3 months; DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD), dysthymic disorder, or depressive disorder not otherwise specified; and a 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated (QIDS-C₁₆) score ≥ 6 were randomly assigned to MBCT (n = 26) or waitlist (n = 14). We adapted the original MBCT intervention for depression relapse prevention by modifying the psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral therapy elements to an actively depressed chronic pain population. We analyzed an intent-to-treat (ITT) and a per-protocol sample; the per-protocol sample included participants in the MBCT group who completed at least 4 of 8 sessions. Changes in scores on the QIDS-C₁₆ and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Sale (HDRS₁₇) were the primary outcome measures. Pain, quality of life, and anxiety were secondary outcome measures. Data collection took place between January 2012 and July 2013. RESULTS: Nineteen participants (73%) completed the MBCT program. No significant adverse events were reported in either treatment group. ITT analysis (n = 40) revealed no significant differences. Repeated-measures analyses of variance for the per-protocol sample (n = 33) revealed a significant treatment × time interaction (F₁,₃₁ = 4.67, P = .039, η²p = 0.13) for QIDS-C₁₆ score, driven by a significant decrease in the MBCT group (t₁₈ = 5.15, P < .001, d = >1.6), but not in the control group (t₁₃ = 2.01, P = .066). The HDRS₁₇ scores did not differ significantly between groups. The study ended before the projected sample size was obtained, which might have prevented effect detection in some outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: MBCT shows potential as a treatment for depression in individuals with chronic pain, but larger controlled trials are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01473615.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.15m10160

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 20 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In the intent-to-treat sample, all other measured SF-36 health dimensions showed no significant differences between groups.

    “All other measured health dimensions revealed no significant differences between groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The Cohen's d effect size for improvement on the QIDS-C over time for MBCT relative to waitlist control was 0.77.

    “The Cohen’s d effect size of the improvement on the QIDSC over time for MBCT relative to waiting list control was 0.77.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the per-protocol sample, participants who received MBCT reported a significantly higher subjective impression of clinical improvement (mean=2.5, 'minimally improved' to 'much improved') than controls (mean=4.0, 'no change') (t(23)=3.696, p=0.001).

    “Participants who had received MBCT treatment reported a significantly higher subjective impression of clinical improvement (mean=2. 5 or “minimally improved”-“much improved”) compared to controls (mean =4.0 or “no change”) (t (23) = 3.696, p = 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the intent-to-treat sample, participants who received MBCT reported a significantly higher subjective impression of clinical improvement (mean=2.7, 'minimally improved' to 'much improved') than control subjects (mean=4.0, 'no change') (t(25)=3.47, p=0.002).

    “Participants who had received MBCT treatment reported a significantly higher subjective impression of clinical improvement (mean = 2.7 or “minimally improved”-“much improved”) compared to control subjects (mean = 4.0 or “no change”) (t (25) = 3.47, p = 0.002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Study design and conductown data

    Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between the MBCT and control groups.

    “Independent samples t –test, Chi-square and Fischer’s exact test yielded no statistically significant differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 7
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the per-protocol sample, SF-36 mental health showed a significant time × group interaction (F(1,28)=7.09, p=0.013, η2p=0.20), driven by a significant increase in the MBCT group (t(17)=-3.650, p=0.002, d=0.83) but not in the control group (t(11), p=0.854).

    “For quality of life, as measured by the SF-36, two health dimensions showed a significant time x group interaction; mental health (F (1, 28) = 7.09, p = 0.013, η2p = 0. 20), driven by a significant increase in the MBCT group (t (17) = −3.650, p = 0.002, d = 0.83), but not in the control group (t (11), p = 0.854);”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the intent-to-treat sample, SF-36 vitality showed a significant time × group interaction (F(1,33)=8.45, p=0.006, η2p=0.20), driven by a significant increase in the MBCT group (t(22)=2.59, p=0.017, d=0.50) but not in the control group (t(11)=-1.92, p=0.082); however, because the MBCT group had lower baseline vitality, this positive interaction might be due to regression to the mean.

    “and vitality (F (1, 33) = 8.45, p = 0.006, η2p = 0.20), driven by a significant increase in the MBCT group (t (22) = 2.59, p = 0.017, d = 0.50), but not in the control group (t (11 ) = −1.92, p = 0.082); however, because the MBCT group had a significantly lower vitality score at baseline, this positive interaction might be due to regression to the mean.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the per-protocol sample, repeated measures ANOVA found a significant time × treatment interaction for QIDS-C16 (F(1,31)=4.67, p=0.039, η2p=0.13), driven by a significant decrease in the MBCT group (t(18)=5.15, p<0.001, d=1.6) but not in the control group (t(13)=2.01, p=0.066).

    “In the per protocol sample, repeated measures ANOVA with time (baseline and endpoint) as the repeated measure, treatment arm as the between-subjects factor, and the QIDS-C16 score as the dependent variable, revealed a significant time × treatment interaction (F (1, 31) = 4.67, p = 0.039, η2p = 0. 13) for the QIDS-C16, driven by a significant decrease in the MBCT (t (18) = 5.15, p < 0.001, d=1.6),”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the intent-to-treat sample, secondary outcomes showed no significant time × treatment interaction for pain (VAS pain intensity and BPI pain interference) or anxiety (BAI).

    “The secondary outcome measures revealed no significant findings on time × treatment interaction for pain (VAS ratings Pain Intensity and BPI pain interference) and anxiety (BAI).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the intent-to-treat sample, clinical improvement on the QIDS-C16 and HRSD17 was greater in the MBCT group than in the control group, but the between-group difference was not statistically significant.

    “Clinical improvement measured by both the QIDS-C16 and the HRSD17 was greater for the MBCT group than for the control group, but the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (Figure 2a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the intent-to-treat sample, SF-36 mental health showed a significant time × group interaction (F(1,33)=5.10, p=0.031, η2p=0.13), driven by a significant increase in the MBCT group (t(22)=3.40, p=0.003, d=0.57) but not in the control group (t(11)=-0.19, p=0.854).

    “For quality of life, as measured by the SF-36, two health dimensions showed a significant time x group interaction; mental health (F (1, 33) = 5.10, p = 0.031, η2p = 0.13) driven by a significant increase in the MBCT group (t (22) = 3.40, p = 0.003, d = 0.57), but not in the control group (t (11) = −0.19, p = 0.854);”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    In the per-protocol sample, all other measured SF-36 health dimensions showed no significant differences between groups.

    “All other measured health dimensions revealed no significant differences between groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No significant adverse events occurred in either treatment arm, except one MBCT participant discontinued because of spiritual issues possibly related to treatment; other reported adverse events were not related to the intervention.

    “There were no significant adverse events (AEs) in either treatment arm, except for 1 participant in the intervention group who discontinued because she had spiritual issues, possibly related to the treatment. Other AEs reported included bronchitis, nausea and urinary burning, which were not related to the intervention.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the per-protocol sample, SF-36 vitality showed a significant time × group interaction (F(1,28)=9.37, p=0.005, η2p=0.25), driven by a significant increase in the MBCT group (t(17)=-2.69, p=0.016, d=0.68) but not in the control group (t(11)=1.92, p=0.082).

    “and vitality (F (1, 28) = 9.37, p = 0.005, η2p = 0.25), driven by a significant increase in the MBCT group (t (17) = −2.69, p = 0.016, d = 0.68), but not in the control group (t (11) = 1.92, p = 0.082).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the study sample, 85% had major depressive disorder, 15% had minor depressive disorder, and none had dysthymic disorder.

    “Eighty-five percent of the participants suffered from MDD, and 15 % from Minor Depressive Disorder (within the broader category of Depressive Disorder NOS). None of the participants suffered from Dysthymic Disorder.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In the per-protocol sample, secondary outcomes showed no significant time × treatment interaction for pain (VAS pain intensity and BPI pain interference) or anxiety (BAI).

    “The secondary outcome measures revealed no significant findings on time × treatment interaction for pain (VAS ratings Pain Intensity and BPI pain interference) and anxiety (BAI).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In a post hoc analysis, improvement in selected psychological symptoms of the HRSD17 was greater in the intervention group than in the control group, but the difference did not reach significance.

    “As a post hoc analysis, we examined a sub portion of the HRSD17 including only psychological symptoms (mood, guilt, suicide, anxiety psychic and insight). Improvement in these selective symptoms was greater for the intervention group than for the control group, but did not reach significance (data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the per-protocol sample, HRSD17 clinical improvement was greater in the MBCT group than in the control group, but the between-group difference was not statistically significant.

    “Clinical improvement measured by the HRSD17 was also greater for the MBCT group than for the control group, but the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (Figure 2b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In people with chronic pain, depression is the most frequent psychiatric comorbidity, and the average prevalence of comorbid major depressive disorder ranges from 18% in population-based samples to 85% in specialized pain clinics.

    “Depression is the most common of these, with a mean prevalence rate of comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients with chronic pain ranging from 18 % in population-based settings up to 85 % in specialized pain clinics (Bair et al., 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bair et al., 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Some participants changed their medications and other concurrent treatments during the study, which may have affected the findings.

    “In addition, some participants did change their medications and other concurrent treatments during the course of the study, and this too may have impacted the findings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because MBCT is delivered in a group setting, it may be a potentially cost-efficient treatment modality.

    “Finally, because MBCT is delivered in a group setting, it may also represent a potentially cost-efficient treatment modality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    This pilot study found positive outcomes for MBCT on depression in the per-protocol sample and on mental health in both the intent-to-treat and per-protocol samples, but not on pain intensity.

    “This pilot study shows positive outcomes for MBCT for depression (in the per protocol sample) and mental health (both in the ITT and the per protocol sample), but not for pain intensity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Preliminary evidence suggests MBCT may be a feasible and potentially effective treatment for depression in patients with chronic pain, based on positive findings in one of two primary outcomes in the per-protocol analysis but not in the intent-to-treat analysis.

    “In summary, we have obtained preliminary evidence that MBCT may be a feasible and potentially effective intervention for treating depression in patients with CP, based on positive findings in 1 of 2 primary outcomes in the per protocol analysis, though not in the ITT analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The findings support the hypothesis that combining CBT and mindfulness may create a synergistic effect and improve outcomes, at least for depression.

    “These findings support our hypothesis that integrating CBT and mindfulness might create a synergistic effect and result in improved outcomes, at least with regard to depression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Of the 26 participants who began MBCT, 19 (73%) completed at least 4 of the 8 sessions, with a mean attendance of 7 of 8 classes.

    “Of the 26 participants who started the MBCT classes, 19 (73 %) completed the “minimum effective dose” of 4 MBCT sessions (mean attendance was 7 of 8 classes).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Because of its pilot nature, the study used a waitlist control rather than an active comparison group, and a waitlist control does not adequately control for placebo effects from non-specific factors such as attention.

    “Finally, because of the pilot nature of this study, we did not include an active comparison group but used a waitlist control group, which does not adequately control for “placebo effects” induced by non-specific factors such as attention in patient-provider interactions (Goyal et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goyal et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The original power calculation assumed a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.5), estimated that 46 subjects would give 90% power to detect a treatment difference, and, assuming about 20% attrition, sought 60 subjects.

    “Assuming an estimate of a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.5), a total sample size of 46 subjects would provide 90 % power to detect a difference between treatments. Assuming an attrition rate of approximately 20 %, we originally sought to include 60 subjects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because the pilot study had a small sample, it may have had just enough power to detect mood effects in the per-protocol sample but was likely underpowered to detect smaller effects on pain intensity.

    “Because this pilot study had only a small sample size, we might have had just enough power to detect effects on mood in the per protocol sample, but may have been underpowered to detect the smaller effects on pain intensity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    At baseline, SF-36 subscales did not differ significantly between groups except vitality, which was lower in the intervention group.

    “The SF-36 subscales, except for ‘vitality’ (lower in the intervention group), showed no statistically significant differences between the groups (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain have shown promising results, but well-designed studies are lacking.

    “Research in mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain show promising results, (Day et al., 2014) but there is a lack of well designed studies (Veehof et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Day et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Veehof et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Patients who have both chronic pain and depression show greater pain intensity, greater pain-related interference, and more pain behaviors.

    “Patients with chronic pain and comorbid depression experience greater pain intensity, greater interference due to pain, and more pain behaviors, specifically including Affective Distress and Facial/Audible Expressions as measured by the Pain Behavior Check List (Haythornthwaite et al., 1991; Kerns et al., 1991).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Haythornthwaite et al., 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kerns et al., 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Tolerability and acceptability were good, with almost no adverse effects and a 73% retention rate, which can be considered high in a chronic pain population.

    “As expected, tolerability and acceptability were good, with almost no adverse effects and a retention rate of 73%, which can be considered high in a population suffering from chronic pain (Turk & Rudy, 1990).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Turk & Rudy, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Adding MBCT to available treatments may widen the therapeutic scope of potential interventions.

    “Adding MBCT to the available treatments may widen the therapeutic scope of potential interventions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Depression in chronic pain is linked to worse occupational and social functioning, higher health care use, and greater risk of attempted and completed suicide.

    “In addition, depression is associated with poorer occupational (Sullivan et al., 1992) and social function (Holroyd et al., 2000), increased health care utilization (Engel et al., 1996), and increased risk of attempted and completed suicide (Tang & Crane, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sullivan et al., 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holroyd et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Engel et al., 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study attempted to control for attention by keeping all office and phone visits with the clinician equal in the MBCT and control groups.

    “We did try to control for attention as much as possible by keeping all office and phone visits with the clinician equal in both the MBCT group and the control group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study was initially powered for a 1:1 randomization ratio but switched to a 2:1 MBCT-to-control ratio because of recruitment challenges, which caused a greater loss of statistical power.

    “Also, this study was initially powered according to a 1:1 randomization ratio, but due to recruitment challenges we switched to a randomization ratio of 2 MBCT subjects for every control subject, which resulted in a greater loss of statistical power.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior studies have specifically examined the effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention for depression in a chronic pain population.

    “To our knowledge there are no studies that specifically address the effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention for depression in a CP population.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No study has validated the QIDS-C16 in a medically ill population.

    “To our knowledge, no study has been carried out to validate the QIDS-C16 in a medically ill population.”
2 of 2

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 31) = 4.67reported p = .039 · recomputed p = .039

    “F (1, 31) = 4.67, p = .039”

  • Consistentt(18) = 5.15reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (18) = 5.15, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(13) = 2.01reported p = .066 · recomputed p = .066

    “t (13) = 2.01, p = .066”

  • ConsistentF(1, 33) = 5.1reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .031

    “F (1, 33) = 5.10, p = .031”

  • Consistentt(22) = 3.4reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “t (22) = 3.40, p = .003”

  • Consistentt(11) = -0.19reported p = .854 · recomputed p = .853

    “t (11) = −0.19, p = .854”

  • ConsistentF(1, 33) = 8.45reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “F (1, 33) = 8.45, p = .006”

  • Consistentt(22) = 2.59reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “t (22) = 2.59, p = .017”

  • Consistentt(11) = -1.92reported p = .082 · recomputed p = .081

    “t (11 ) = −1.92, p = .082”

  • Consistentt(25) = 3.47reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t (25) = 3.47, p = .002”

  • ConsistentF(1, 28) = 7.09reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013

    “F (1, 28) = 7.09, p = .013”

  • Consistentt(17) = -3.65reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t (17) = −3.650, p = .002”

  • ConsistentF(1, 28) = 9.37reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “F (1, 28) = 9.37, p = .005”

  • Consistentt(17) = -2.69reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .015

    “t (17) = −2.69, p = .016”

  • Consistentt(11) = 1.92reported p = .082 · recomputed p = .081

    “t (11) = 1.92, p = .082”

  • Consistentt(23) = 3.696reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “t (23) = 3.696, p = .001”

16 of 16

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
de Jong, M., Peeters, F., Gard, T., Ashih, H., Doorley, J., Walker, R., Rhoades, L., Kulich, R. J., Kueppenbender, K. D., Alpert, J. E., Hoge, E. A., Britton, W. B., Lazar, S. W., Fava, M., & Mischoulon, D.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Publisher
Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc
Published
2018-02-21
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
26-34
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4088/jcp.15m10160
PMC
PMC6020018
OpenAlex
W2592970528
Cited by
39
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Amgen
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
  • CeNeRx
  • Pharmavite
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • Cerecor
  • American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology
  • Belvoir Media Group
  • Seres Therapeutics
  • Science Foundation Ireland
  • Servier
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • National Institutes of Health (5r34at007197-02)
  • Allergan
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG048351)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R21AT003425, R34-AT007197, K23AT006328, R01AT006344)
  • Daiichi Sankyo Europe
  • Cilag
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, major depressive disorder, chronic pain, depression relapse prevention, comorbid depression, psychoeducation, cognitive behavioral therapy, quality of life, anxiety, pain
MeSH terms
Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, 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.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

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