Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of two differently-designed psychological interventions for chronic pain.

Design: 138 patients presenting chronic pain were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: (1) Psychoeducational relaxation therapy (PRT, n = 84) or (2) PRT followed by acceptance and commitment therapy (PRT + ACT, n = 54).

Main outcome measures: Pain intensity, quality of life (SF-36), anxiety and depression (HADS), stress (PSS), pain catastrophizing (PCS), chronic pain acceptance (CPAQ), and psychological inflexibility (PIPS) were assessed at three time-points: before therapy (T1); at the end of the therapy (T2); and 3- months after the end of the therapy (T3).

Results: In T2, the PRT intervention showed more significant improvements in the measures of mental quality of life [F (1,92) = 7.478, P < .05] and depression [F (1, 92) = 5.804, P < .05] compared to the PRT + ACT intervention. The experimental groups did not differ in their outcome measures at T3.

Conclusion: PRT appears to be an effective solution in the psychological care of chronic pain. The effectiveness of this type of intervention seems to have been underestimated. The addition of ACT sessions did not significantly impact the results, indicating that both designs of interventions are effective in the short term.

摘要

目的：本研究的目的是比较两种不同设计的心理干预对慢性疼痛的临床疗效。

设计：将138例慢性疼痛患者随机分配到以下两种实验条件之一：（1）心理教育放松疗法（PRT，n  =  84）或（2）PRT，然后接受接受和承诺疗法（PRT + ACT，n  =  54） 。

主要结局指标：评估疼痛强度，生活质量（SF-36），焦虑和抑郁（HADS），压力（PSS），疼痛灾难性（PCS），慢性疼痛接受度（CPAQ）和心理僵硬（PIPS）三个时间点：治疗前（T1）；在治疗结束时（T2）；治疗结束后3个月（T3）。

结果：在T2中，PRT干预在心理生活质量[F（1,92）= 7.478，P < .05]和抑郁[F（1，92）= 5.804 ，P <。 05]相较于PRT + ACT干预。实验组在T3时的结局指标没有差异。

结论： PRT似乎是治疗慢性疼痛的有效方法。这种干预的有效性似乎被低估了。ACT会议的增加并没有对结果产生重大影响，表明这两种干预措施的设计在短期内都是有效的。