Trial reportPain2026
Predictors of patient treatment adherence and moderators of response for a randomized clinical trial comparing remote cognitive behavioral therapy approaches for high-impact chronic musculoskeletal pain.
Trial report in Pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractRemote cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions for chronic pain (CBT-CP-based) have consistently shown modest pain benefits. With remote treatment availability accelerating and increasingly tight healthcare resources, clinical decision-makers need to understand when working with a therapist may be beneficial vs a largely self-directed online program. Using data from a large-scale 3-arm pragmatic trial, we assessed the role of patient session adherence and potential moderators of intervention pain severity effectiveness for 2 remote CBT-CP-based approaches (online program [painTRAINER] and therapist-delivered telephone or video program [health coach]) and usual medical care. Of the prespecified moderators (demographics [sex, age, race/ethnicity, rurality], social determinants of health, and clinical variables [comorbid depression and/or anxiety, multiple types of chronic pain]), the health coach program was more effective than painTRAINER at 3 months among men and for those who screened positive for depression. No other factors moderated intervention pain severity effects at 3 or 12 months. The health coach program had higher session adherence than painTRAINER (70.4% vs 47.8%). Among intervention completers, pain severity outcomes were similar between CBT-CP-based interventions (Adjusted relative risk [95% confidence interval]: 0.99 [0.85-1.16] and 0.93 [0.82-1.05] at 3 and 12 months, respectively), suggesting that both interventions may be helpful for those with a variety of demographic and clinical characteristics if adherence is achieved. Participant engagement is critical in optimizing outcomes for online programs, but these findings suggest flexibility in the specific modality for delivering remote CBT-CP based on patient preference and healthcare system capacity that may enhance scalability and patient access to care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.