Skip to main content Skip to search
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
This research examined whether cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions that target responses to chronic stress, pain, and depression reduce pain and improve the quality of everyday life for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The 144 RA participants were clustered into groups of 6–10 participants and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments: cognitive behavioral therapy for pain (P); mindfulness meditation and emotion regulation therapy (M); or education-only group (E), which served as an attention placebo control. The authors took a multimethod approach, employing daily diaries and laboratory assessment of pain and mitogen-stimulated levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), a proinflammatory cytokine. Participants receiving P showed the greatest Pre to Post improvement in self-reported pain control and reductions in the IL-6; both P and M groups showed more improvement in coping efficacy than did the E group. The relative value of the treatments varied as a function of depression history. RA patients with recurrent depression benefited most from M across several measures, including negative and positive affect and physicians' ratings of joint tenderness, indicating that the emotion regulation aspects of that treatment were most beneficial to those with chronic depressive features.

BACKGROUND:This study tested the effectiveness of a computerized mindfulness-based cognitive therapy intervention compared with computerized pain management psychoeducation in a randomized study. METHODS: Using an intention-to-treat approach, 124 adult participants who reported experiencing pain that was unrelated to cancer and of at least 6 months duration were randomly assigned to computerized mindfulness-based cognitive therapy ("Mindfulness in Action" [MIA]) or pain management psychoeducation programs. Data were collected before and after the intervention and at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Participants in both groups showed equivalent change and significant improvements on measures of pain interference, pain acceptance, and catastrophizing from pretreatment to posttreatment and the improvements were maintained at follow-up. Average pain intensity also reduced from baseline to posttreatment for both groups, but was not maintained at follow-up. Participants in both groups reported increases in subjective well-being, these were more pronounced in the MIA than the pain management psychoeducation group. Participants in the MIA group also reported a greater reduction in pain "right now," and increases in their ability to manage emotions, manage stress, and enjoy pleasant events on completion of the intervention. The changes in ability to manage emotions and stressful events were maintained at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study provide evidence that although there were equivalent changes across outcomes of interest for participants in both conditions over time, the MIA program showed a number of unique benefits. However, the level of participant attrition in the study highlighted a need for further attention to participant engagement with online chronic pain programs.