LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Clarke, SP; Poulis, N; Moreton, BJ; Walsh, DA; Lincoln, NB (2016)
Publisher: Taylor and Francis online
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate an Acceptance commitment therapy (ACT) intervention for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis; a related aim was to compare treatment effects from Rasch-transformed and standard scales.\ud METHODS: Participants were recruited from a research database and outpatient rheumatology and orthopaedic clinics at two hospitals. Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either intervention or usual care. Intervention comprised six-sessions of group ACT. Outcomes were assessed two and four months after randomization. Rasch-transformed and standard self-report measures were compared. Qualitative interviews also explored the acceptability of the intervention.\ud RESULTS: Of 87 people assessed for eligibility, 31 (36%) were randomized. The main reason for non-randomization was that participants received surgery. Of the 16 participants randomized to intervention, 64% completed ≥50% of the scheduled group sessions. Follow-up data was complete for 84% participants at two months and 68% at four months. Outcome analysis demonstrated important differences between the Rasch-transformed and standard scales. There were significant differences between the groups in pain. Qualitative interviews with seven participants suggested the intervention was acceptable.\ud CONCLUSIONS: ACT for osteoarthritis is likely to be an acceptable treatment option for people with osteoarthritis. Progress to a definitive trial is warranted. Rasch-transformed outcome scales are preferable in clinical trials where possible. Implications for Rehabilitation Acceptance commitment therapy (ACT) is an effective treatment for many pain conditions andcould be a useful intervention for people with osteoarthritis who have high levels of pain. Rasch analysis is a measurement technique that may enable greater precision in detectingmeaningful treatment effects in routine clinical outcomes. The ACT intervention was successful in reducing pain and sleep difficulties and there werenotable differences in effects between standard and Rasch-transformed scales. In a relatively small trial, ACT may to be an acceptable intervention for people with osteoarthritisand progress to a definitive trial is warranted.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Arden N, Nevitt M. Osteoarthritis: epidemiology. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Rheumatoogy 2006;20:3-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2005.09.007
    • 2. Brooks P. Impact of osteoarthritis on individuals and society: how much disability? Social consequences and health economic implications. Current Opinion in Rheumatology 2002;14(5):573-77. DOI: 10.1097/00002281-200209000- 00017
    • 3. Dieppe P, Lohmander L. Pathogenesis and management of pain in osteoarthritis. The Lancet 2005;365(9463):965. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71086-2
    • 4. Linton S, Shaw W. Impact of psychological factors in the experience of pain. Physical therapy 2012;91(5):700-11. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20100330
    • 5. McCracken L, Vowles K. Acceptance of chronic pain. Current Pain and Headache Reports 2006;10(2):90-4. DOI: 10.1007/s11916-006-0018-y
    • 6. McCracken L, Vowles K, Eccleston C. Acceptance of chronic pain: component analysis and a revised assessment method. Pain 2004; 107(1-2):159-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2003.10.012
    • 7. Thompson M, McCracken L. Acceptance and related processes in adjustment to chronic pain. Current Pain and Headache Reports 2011;15(2):144-51. DOI: 10.1007/s11916-010-0170-2
    • 8. McCracken L, Zhao-O'Brien J. General psychological acceptance and chronic pain: there is more to accept than the pain itself. European Journal of Pain 2010;14(2):170-5. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.03.004
    • 9. McCracken LM, Morley S. The psychological flexibility model: a basis for integration and progress in psychological approaches to chronic pain management. J Pain 2014;15(3):221-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2013.10.014.
    • 10. McCracken LM. Committed Action: An Application of the Psychological Flexibility Model to Activity Patterns in Chronic Pain. Journal of Pain 2013;14(8):828-35
    • 11. Vowles K, McCracken L. Comparing the role of psychological flexibility and traditional pain management coping strategies in chronic pain treatment outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy 2010;48(2):141-6
    • 12. McCracken L, Gauntlett-Gilbert J, Vowles K. The role of mindfulness in a contextual cognitive-behavioral analysis of chronic pain-related suffering and disability. Pain 2007; 131(1-2):63-9.
    • 13. Dixon KE, Keefe FJ, Scipio CD, Perri LCM, Abernethy AP. Psychological interventions for arthritis pain management in adults: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology2007;26(3):241-50.
    • 14. Morley S, Williams A, Eccleston C. Examining the evidence about psychological treatments for chronic pain: Time for a paradigm shift? Pain 2013;154(10):1929-31.
    • 15. Pull CB. Current empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2009;22(1):55-60
    • 16. Veehof M, Oskam M, Schreurs K, Bohlmeijer E. Acceptance-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain 2011;152(3):533-42.
    • 17. Wetherell JL, Afari N, Rutledge T, Sorrell JT, Stoddard JA, Petkus AJ, Solomon BC, Lehman DH, Liu L, Lang AJ, Atkinson JH. A randomized, controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain. Pain 2011;152(9):2098-107.
    • 18. Ang DC, Jensen MP, Steiner JL, Hilligoss J, Gracely RH, Saha C. Combining Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Milnacipran for Fibromyalgia A Feasibility Randomized-controlled Trial. Clinical Journal of Pain 2013;29(9):747-54.
    • 19. McCracken LM, Sato A, Taylor GJ. A Trial of a Brief Group-Based Form of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for Chronic Pain in General Practice: Pilot Outcome and Process Results. The Journal of Pain 2013;14(11):1398-406.
    • 20. Vowles K, McCracken L, O'Brien JZ. Acceptance and values-based action in chronic pain: a three-year follow-up analysis of treatment effectiveness and process. Behaviour Research and Therapy 2011;49(11):748-55
    • 21. Moreton BJ, Wheeler M, Walsh DA, Lincoln NB. Rasch analysis of the intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP) scale. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2012;20(10-3):1109-15.
    • 22. Tennant A, Conaghan P. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1358-62.
    • 23. Ko Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, Yeo W, Chong HC. Rasch analysis of the Oxford Knee Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009;17:1163-9.
    • 24. Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology 2007;46:1-18.
    • 25. Moreton BJ, Wheeler M, Walsh DA, Lincoln NB. Acceptance of chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis: A rasch analysis of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire Revised. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2015;47(7):655-661.
    • 26. Farrar JT, Young JPJ, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149-58.
    • 27. Hawker GA, Davis AM, French MR, Cibere J, Jordan JM, March L, Suarez-Almazor M, Katz JN, Dieppe Pl. Development and preliminary psychometric testing of a new OA pain measure - an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2008;16(4).
    • 28. Goldberg D. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson, 1992
    • 29. McCracken LM, Zayfert C, Gross RT. The Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale: development and validation of a scale to measure fear of pain. Pain 1992;50(1):67-73.
    • 30. Vowels KE, Wetherell JL, Sorrell JT. Targeting acceptance, mindfulness, and values-based action in chronic pain: findings of two preliminary trials of an outpatient group-based intervention. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 2009; 16:49-58
    • 31. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3:77-101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    • 32. Boyatzis R. Transforming Qualitative Information. 1998; London: Sage.
    • 33. das Nair R, Anderson P, Clarke S, Leighton P, Lincoln NB, Mhizha-Murira JR, Scammell BE, Walsh DA. Homeadministered pre-surgical psychological intervention for knee osteoarthritis (HAPPiKNEES): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016; 17(1): 54. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1165-z.
    • 34. Pouli N, Das Nair R, Lincoln NB, Walsh D. The experience of living with knee osteoarthritis: exploring illness and treatment beliefs through thematic analysis. Disabil Rehabil 2014; 36(7): 600-607
    • 35. Srikanth VK, Fryer JL, Zhai G, Winzenberg TM, Hosmer D, Jones G. A meta-analysis of sex differences prevalence, incidence and severity of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2005; 13(9): 769-781
    • 36. Pieh C, Altmeppen J, Neumeier S, Loew T, Angerer M, Lahmann C. Gender differences in outcomes of a multimodal pain management program. Pain 2012; 153(1): 197-202.
    • 37. Weinberger J, Rasco C. Empirically supported common factors. In Hofmann SG, Weinberger, JL. The art and science of psychotherapy. 2007 New York: Routledge. pp. 103-129 CPAQ Pain Willingness 9.1 8 5 19 16 7 8 39.5 36.5 13 10.9 16.5 6 42 19 3 7 58 12 9-12 7-11 4-7 30- 47 13- 27 10- 19 2-9 7-8 41- 69 8-23 10 8.1 6.7 4 47 25 19 8 6 36 11 7-9 6-8 3-6 39- 50 18- 27 17- 20 6-6 29- 50 6-10 12 10.1 7.5 6 37 19 6.5 7 57.5 8-10 5-8 9-27 5-8 0.03 0.36 0.13 0.20 0.04 13.5 8-19 0.05 6 6.1 4.1 3 44 25 19 9 4 8 30 9-13 11 9-26 0.47 8-11 11.5 7-24 0.37 37..5 20.5 15 6.5 7 62 0.002 0.10 0.28 0.14 0.28 0.02 0.02
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article