Evidence Hub

Virtual Coach–Guided Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

E. Reilly, Megan M. Kelly, H. Grigorian, M. Waring, K. Quigley, Timothy P. Hogan, Alicia A Heapy, Charles E Drebing et al.

JMIR Formative Research, 2024

22 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Background Veterans are disproportionately affected by chronic pain, with high rates of pain diagnoses (47%-56%) and a 40% higher rate of prevalence of severe pain than nonveterans. This is often accompanied by negative functional outcomes and higher mortality. Combined with research suggesting medical treatments for chronic pain are often insufficient, there is an urgent need for nonmedical pain self-management programs. An interactive online platform to deliver an efficacious treatment for chronic pain such as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) could be a valuable option to assist veterans with pain care at home. Objective This study aims to evaluate the virtual coach–guided Veteran ACT for Chronic Pain (VACT-CP) online program compared to a waitlist and treatment as usual (WL+TAU) control group through a small pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial. The primary aim was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of VACT-CP and study procedures, such as ease of recruitment, treatment receptivity, attrition and retention, sustained participation, system usability, and assessment of trial procedures. Secondary aims explored differences in the VACT-CP and WL+TAU groups on pre- and posttest (week 7) outcome measures for pain, mental health, functioning, and ACT processes. Methods Veterans with chronic pain were recruited and randomized to either the VACT-CP (n=20) or the WL+TAU (n=22) group in a parallel group trial design. Self-report surveys were administered…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 22 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free