Acceptance-based interventions such as mindfulness-based stress reduction program and acceptance and commitment therapy are alternative therapies for cognitive behavioral therapy for treating chronic pain patients. To assess the effects of acceptance-based interventions on patients with chronic pain, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and noncontrolled studies reporting effects on mental and physical health of pain patients. All studies were rated for quality. Primary outcome measures were pain intensity and depression. Secondary outcomes were anxiety, physical wellbeing, and quality of life. Twenty-two studies (9 randomized controlled studies, 5 clinical controlled studies [without randomization] and 8 noncontrolled studies) were included, totaling 1235 patients with chronic pain. An effect size on pain of 0.37 was found for the controlled studies. The effect on depression was 0.32. The quality of the studies was not found to moderate the effects of acceptance-based interventions. The results suggest that at present mindfulness-based stress reduction program and acceptance and commitment therapy are not superior to cognitive behavioral therapy but can be good alternatives. More high-quality studies are needed. It is recommended to focus on therapies that integrate mindfulness and behavioral therapy. Acceptance-based therapies have small to medium effects on physical and mental health in chronic pain patients. These effects are comparable to those of cognitive behavioral therapy.

The number of acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain, such as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), increased in recent years. Therefore an update is warranted of our former systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported effects on the mental and physical health of chronic pain patients. Pubmed, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane were searched for eligible studies. Current meta-analysis only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were rated for quality. Mean quality did not improve in recent years. Pooled standardized mean differences using the random-effect model were calculated to represent the average intervention effect and, to perform subgroup analyses. Outcome measures were pain intensity, depression, anxiety, pain interference, disability and quality of life. Included were twenty-five RCTs totaling 1285 patients with chronic pain, in which we compared acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions to the waitlist, (medical) treatment-as-usual, and education or support control groups. Effect sizes ranged from small (on all outcome measures except anxiety and pain interference) to moderate (on anxiety and pain interference) at post-treatment and from small (on pain intensity and disability) to large (on pain interference) at follow-up. ACT showed significantly higher effects on depression and anxiety than MBSR and MBCT. Studies' quality, attrition rate, type of pain and control group, did not moderate the effects of acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions. Current acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions, while not superior to traditional cognitive behavioral treatments, can be good alternatives.

Objectives: The 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is often used in pain management. The aims of our study were to determine the cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, to measure the variability of the optimal cut-off points, and to determine the influence of patients’ catastrophizing and their sex on these cut-off points.Methods: 2854 patients were included. Pain was assessed by the NRS, functioning by the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and catastrophizing by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Cut-off point schemes were tested using ANOVAs with and without using the PSC scores or sex as co-variates and with the interaction between CP scheme and PCS score and sex, respectively. The variability of the optimal cut-off point schemes was quantified using bootstrapping procedure.Results and conclusion: The study showed that NRS scores ≤ 5 correspond to mild, scores of 6–7 to moderate and scores ≥8 to severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning. Bootstrapping analysis identified this optimal NRS cut-off point scheme in 90% of the bootstrapping samples. The interpretation of the NRS is independent of sex, but seems to depend on catastrophizing. In patients with high catastrophizing tendency, the optimal cut-off point scheme equals that for the total study sample, but in patients with a low catastrophizing tendency, NRS scores ≤ 3 correspond to mild, scores of 4–6 to moderate and scores ≥7 to severe pain in terms of interference with functioning. In these optimal cut-off schemes, NRS scores of 4 and 5 correspond to moderate interference with functioning for patients with low catastrophizing tendency and to mild interference for patients with high catastrophizing tendency. Theoretically one would therefore expect that among the patients with NRS scores 4 and 5 there would be a higher average PDI score for those with low catastrophizing than for those with high catastrophizing. However, we found the opposite. The fact that we did not find the same optimal CP scheme in the subgroups with lower and higher catastrophizing tendency may be due to chance variability.