No abstract

Objective This pilot trial compared the feasibility, tolerability, acceptability, and effects of group-delivered mindfulness meditation (MM), cognitive therapy (CT), and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Setting University of Queensland Psychology Clinic. Subjects Participants were N = 69 (intent-to-treat [ITT] sample) adults with CLBP. Design A pilot, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial. Methods Participants were randomized to treatments. The primary outcome was pain interference; secondary outcomes were pain intensity, physical function, depression, and opioid medication use. The primary study end point was post-treatment; maintenance of gains was evaluated at three- and six-month follow-up. Results Ratings of acceptability, and ratios of dropout and attendance showed that MBCT was acceptable, feasible, and well tolerated, with similar results found across conditions. For the ITT sample, large improvements in post-treatment scores for pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, and depression were found (P < 0.001), with no significant between-group differences. Analysis of the follow-up data (N = 43), however, revealed that MBCT participants improved significantly more than MM participants on pain interference, physical function, and depression. The CT group improved more than MM in physical function. The MBCT and CT groups did not differ significantly on any measures. Conclusions This is the first study to examine MBCT for CLBP management. The findings show that MBCT is a feasible, tolerable, acceptable, and potentially efficacious treatment option for CLBP. Further, MBCT, and possibly CT, could have sustained benefits that exceed MM on some important CLBP outcomes. A future definitive randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate these treatments and their differences.

Background: People living with MS during COVID-19 are experiencing the disruptions of the pandemic and concerns that their health status may place them at greater risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes.Objective: This study sought to understand how people living with MS in the United States experienced distress and perceived their COVID-19-related risk during the first surge of the pandemic. Methods: This was a web-based, self-report survey of people with MS who were living in the United States during the early stage of COVID-19. Primary outcomes were depression, anxiety, and positive-affect and well-being. Participants (N = 491) also provided data on demographics, MS-related factors, COVID-19 factors, and psychological coping. Results: Psychological distress was associated with age, psychological coping strategies, and having had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, but not with MS disease-related variables and COVID-19 risk factors. Perception of COVID-19-related risk was associated with age, MS disease severity, COVID-19-related factors, and anxiety. Conclusion:This study demonstrated that even during COVID-19, distress and risk perception are primarily driven by psychological factors, experiencing symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and age, with minimal contribution from individual differences in health status, providing an impetus for continued efforts to optimize psychological interventions for people living with MS.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) organizations have recommended that adults with MS obtain the COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy is a barrier to full COVID-19 inoculation in the general population. Whether vaccine hesitancy is also a barrier towards optimizing vaccination rates in the MS community is unknown. To investigate vaccine hesitancy and inform efforts to increase vaccine uptake in the MS population, we conducted a follow up survey of a national sample of adults with MS living in the United States who completed an initial survey early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study aimed to answer questions vital to understanding vaccine hesitancy, specifically: (1) What is the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in early 2021? (2) What are the reasons for and factors associated with current hesitancy? (3) How has vaccine willingness and hesitancy changed from April/May 2020 to January/February 2021? and (4) Who has changed in their vaccine willingness? Methods: Adults with MS living in the United States (N = 359) completed two online surveys (the first between 10 April 2020 and 06 May 2020; the second between 11 January 2021 and 08 February 2021) about their willingness and intent to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants also completed measures to assess factors potentially related to vaccine hesitancy, including demographics, MS variables, influenza vaccine history, vaccine concerns, and contextual factors, including perceived risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, trust in COVID-19 information source, anxiety, and loneliness. Results: Of the participants who completed the second survey in early 2021, 20.3% were vaccine hesitant, that is, either reporting that they were undecided (13.9%) or not intending to get vaccinated (6.4%). Vaccine hesitancy decreased between the two surveys, with nearly three-fourths (73.8%) of the second sample reporting that they planned to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with having a lower level of education, being non-White, not having a recent flu vaccination, holding a lower perception of one's risk of getting COVID-19, and having lower trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Participants who were vaccine hesitant reported concerns about the long-term effects of the vaccine, the vaccine approval process, and the potential impact of the vaccine given their own health conditions/history. Notably, 90% of the undecided group wanted additional information about the vaccine before deciding. Vaccine willingness changed over time, with many of those who were somewhat willing more willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine at survey 2. Individuals who were unwilling at survey 1 were highly likely to remain unwilling at survey 2. Conclusion: Overall, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased during the pandemic, although one in five adults with MS were hesitant in early 2021. Of those who were undecided, most indicated that they wanted additional information about the vaccine before deciding whether to be vaccinated, suggesting additional educa...

Objectives: This study evaluated theoretically derived mechanisms and common therapeutic factors to test their role in accounting for pain-related outcome change during group-delivered cognitive therapy, mindfulness meditation, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for chronic low back pain. Methods: A secondary analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial was used to explore the primary mechanisms of pretreatment to posttreatment changes in pain control beliefs, mindful observing, and pain catastrophizing, and the secondary common factor mechanisms of therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, and amount of at-home skill practice during treatment. The primary outcome was pain interference; pain intensity was a secondary outcome. Results: Large effect size changes in the 3 primary mechanisms and the outcome variables were found across the conditions. Across all 3 treatment conditions, change in pain control beliefs and pain catastrophizing were significantly associated with improved pain interference, but not pain intensity. Therapeutic alliance was significantly associated with pain intensity improvement and change in the therapy-specific mechanisms across the 3 conditions. Mindful observing, group cohesion, and amount of at-home practice were not significantly associated with changes in the outcomes. Discussion: Cognitive therapy, mindfulness meditation, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for chronic low back pain were all associated with significant changes in the primary mechanisms to a similar degree. Change in perceived pain control and pain catastrophizing emerged as potential “meta-mechanisms” that might be a shared pathway that contributes to improved pain-related outcomes across treatments. Further, strong working alliance may represent a critical therapeutic process that both promotes and interacts with therapeutic techniques to influence outcome.

No abstract

Chronic pain is a significant health problem worldwide with limited pharmacological treatment options. This study evaluated the relative efficacy of four treatment sessions each of four nonpharmacological treatments: (1) hypnotic cognitive therapy (using hypnosis to alter the meaning of pain); (2) standard cognitive therapy; (3) hypnosis focused on pain reduction, and (4) pain education. One hundred seventy-three individuals with chronic pain were randomly assigned to receive four sessions of one of the four treatments. Primary (pain intensity) and secondary outcome measures were administered by assessors unaware of treatment allocation at pretreatment, post-treatment, and 3-, 6-and 12-month follow-up. Treatment effects were evaluated using ANOVA, a generalized estimating equation approach, or a Fisher Exact Test, depending on the outcome domain examined. All four treatments were associated with medium to large effect size improvements in pain intensity that maintained up to 12 months post-treatment. Pre-to posttreatment improvements were observed across the four treatment conditions on the secondary outcomes of pain interference and depressive symptoms, with some return towards pre-treatment levels at 12-months follow-up. No significant between group differences emerged in omnibus analyses, and few statistically significant between-group differences emerged in the planned pairwise analyses, although the two significant effects that did emerge favored hypnotic cognitive therapy. Future research is needed to determine if the significant differences that emerged are reliable.

Chronic pain in multiple sclerosis most commonly shows characteristics consistent with nociceptive mechanisms or can be described as a mixed pain state, with characteristics of nociceptive, nociplastic, and/or neuropathic pain.