A Primary Care–Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Intervention for Long-Term Opioid Users With Chronic Pain: A Randomized Pragmatic Trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common, disabling, and costly. Few clinical trials have examined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions embedded in primary care settings to improve chronic pain among those receiving long-term opioid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592). SETTING: Kaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy. INTERVENTION: A CBT intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorist, nurse, physical therapist, and pharmacist) versus usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported pain impact (primary outcome, as measured by the PEGS scale [pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life, general activity, and sleep]) was assessed quarterly over 12 months. Pain-related disability, satisfaction with care, and opioid and benzodiazepine use based on electronic health care data were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients participated, representing 106 clusters of primary care providers (mean age, 60.3 years; 67.4% women); 816 (96.0%) completed follow-up assessments. Intervention patients sustained larger reductions on all self-reported outcomes from baseline to 12-month follow-up; the change in PEGS score was -0.434 point (95% CI, -0.690 to -0.178 point) for pain impact, and the change in pain-related disability was -0.060 point (CI, -0.084 to -0.035 point). At 6 months, intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with primary care (difference, 0.230 point [CI, 0.053 to 0.406 point]) and pain services (difference, 0.336 point [CI, 0.129 to 0.543 point]). Benzodiazepine use decreased more in the intervention group (absolute risk difference, -0.055 [CI, -0.099 to -0.011]), but opioid use did not differ significantly between groups. LIMITATION: The inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear. CONCLUSION: Primary care-based CBT, using frontline clinicians, produced modest but sustained reductions in measures of pain and pain-related disability compared with usual care but did not reduce use of opioid medication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Prior studies have shown that neither opioid risk reduction tools nor cognitive behavioral therapy reduce the use of opioid medications.
“Prior studies have shown that neither opioid risk reduction tools nor cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) will reduce the use of opioid medications.”
From Decision Support and Behavioral Health for Reducing High-Dose Opioids in Comorbid Chronic Pain, Depression and Anxiety: Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
The Abstract conclusion says this primary care–based CBT intervention did not reduce opioid medication use, and Results > Medication-Related Outcomes reports no intervention-related difference in opioid dose. The paper does not establish that opioid risk reduction tools fail to reduce opioid use. Its finding also concerns this intervention in patients receiving long-term opioid therapy, not all CBT. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrimary care-based cognitive behavioral therapy can produce modest, sustainable reductions in pain, pain-related disability, and benzodiazepine use but has no effect on opioid usage.
“DeBar etal. demonstrated that primary care-based CBT can produce modest, sustainable reductions in pain, painrelated disability, and benzodiazepine use but has no effect on opioid usage.”
From Decision Support and Behavioral Health for Reducing High-Dose Opioids in Comorbid Chronic Pain, Depression and Anxiety: Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
The Abstract Results and Discussion report modest reductions in pain and pain-related disability sustained through 12 months, with no detected reduction in opioid use. The Results’ Medication-Related Outcomes section reports a greater reduction in benzodiazepine receipt at 12 months, but not immediately after treatment; the Discussion calls the benzodiazepine findings inconsistent. Thus, the source does not support describing that reduction as sustained. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 54
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [1]Institute of Medicine. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education and Research. National Academies Pr; 2011. 22553896
- [37]Hox JJ. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2010.
- Authors
- DeBar, L., Mayhew, M., Benes, L., Bonifay, A., Deyo, R. A., Elder, C. R., Keefe, F. J., Leo, M. C., McMullen, C., Owen-Smith, A., Smith, D. H., Trinacty, C. M., & Vollmer, W. M.
- Affiliations
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
- Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (US)
- Montana State University (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Georgia State University School of Public Health and Kaiser Permanente Center for Clinical and Outcomes Research, Atlanta, Georgia (A.O.)
- Queen's Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2022-01
- Volume
- 175
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46-55
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- PMC
- PMC9802183
- OpenAlex
- W3209969107
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10
- FWCI
- 7.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (UH3NS088731)
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (UH2AT007788, U24AT009676)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Keywords
- cognitive behavioral therapy, chronic pain, long-term opioid therapy, pain self-management, primary care, group intervention, pain-related disability, benzodiazepine use, opioid use, patient satisfaction, integrated health system, interdisciplinary care teams, Kaiser Permanente, sleep disorders, physical activity, medication adherence, pain catastrophizing
- MeSH terms
- Self-Management, Adult, Aged, Analgesics, Opioid, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Opioid-Related Disorders, Pain Measurement, Primary Health Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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