Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PA...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2016-03, Vol.315 (12), p.1240-1249
Hauptverfasser: Cherkin, Daniel C, Sherman, Karen J, Balderson, Benjamin H, Cook, Andrea J, Anderson, Melissa L, Hawkes, Rene J, Hansen, Kelly E, Turner, Judith A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1249
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1240
container_title JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
container_volume 315
creator Cherkin, Daniel C
Sherman, Karen J
Balderson, Benjamin H
Cook, Andrea J
Anderson, Melissa L
Hawkes, Rene J
Hansen, Kelly E
Turner, Judith A
description IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compare
doi_str_mv 10.1001/jama.2016.2323
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1970268846</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ama_id>2504811</ama_id><sourcerecordid>4025702471</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a408t-eba86cd089bd8e9f1685592d00dfd9f5c63eb6dfe611622d202602cfd4e4a3b53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks1u1DAUhS0EokNhy4IFssSGTQb_x2Y3E7WANAhUWrGMnNhmPCTx1E4GlefjwXCYUiQ29ca6vt8598o6ADzHaIkRwm92utdLgrBYEkroA7DAnMqCciUfggVCShYlk-wEPElph_LBtHwMTkiJEGGML8CvM-dsO8Lg4Ec_GDd1g02pWOtkDfwyxlzAC2umdvRhgIcEq_Bt8KM_WLi2W33wIeoOXm5t1PsbGCK8SlN-qHS0MAvWuv0OP2s_QD0YeD4Nf3wysPG9H_VcJJi7KzN1Y4Jf_biF1TaGwbdwE37807-FK3iRPULvf-bNqs5nZJ4cve6egkdOd8k-u71PwdX52WX1vth8evehWm0KzZAcC9toKVqDpGqMtMphITlXxCBknFGOt4LaRhhnBcaCEEMQEYi0zjDLNG04PQWvj777GK4nm8a696m1XacHG6ZUY1VmiZRM3I9KxJlSgtL70bLkghKkWEZf_YfuwhTzf86UxByrvHemlkeqjSGlaF29j77X8abGqJ5TU8-pqefU1HNqsuDlre3U9Nbc4X9jkoEXR2DW3XU5YhJj-httAsan</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781519622</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Medical Association Journals</source><creator>Cherkin, Daniel C ; Sherman, Karen J ; Balderson, Benjamin H ; Cook, Andrea J ; Anderson, Melissa L ; Hawkes, Rene J ; Hansen, Kelly E ; Turner, Judith A</creator><creatorcontrib>Cherkin, Daniel C ; Sherman, Karen J ; Balderson, Benjamin H ; Cook, Andrea J ; Anderson, Melissa L ; Hawkes, Rene J ; Hansen, Kelly E ; Turner, Judith A</creatorcontrib><description>IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-7484</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-3598</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.2323</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27002445</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JAMAAP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Back pain ; Behavior modification ; Clinical trials ; Cognitive Therapy - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Inpatient care ; Intention to Treat Analysis ; Low Back Pain - psychology ; Low Back Pain - therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Mindfulness - methods ; Sample Size ; Stress ; Stress, Physiological ; Stress, Psychological - therapy ; Treatment Outcome ; Washington ; Yoga ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2016-03, Vol.315 (12), p.1240-1249</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Medical Association Mar 22-Mar 29, 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a408t-eba86cd089bd8e9f1685592d00dfd9f5c63eb6dfe611622d202602cfd4e4a3b53</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/10.1001/jama.2016.2323$$EPDF$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2016.2323$$EHTML$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>64,314,776,780,3327,27901,27902,76458,76461</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27002445$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cherkin, Daniel C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherman, Karen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balderson, Benjamin H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Andrea J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Melissa L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawkes, Rene J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hansen, Kelly E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Judith A</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial</title><title>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</title><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><description>IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Behavior modification</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cognitive Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inpatient care</subject><subject>Intention to Treat Analysis</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - psychology</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - therapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mindfulness - methods</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><subject>Stress</subject><subject>Stress, Physiological</subject><subject>Stress, Psychological - therapy</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Washington</subject><subject>Yoga</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0098-7484</issn><issn>1538-3598</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks1u1DAUhS0EokNhy4IFssSGTQb_x2Y3E7WANAhUWrGMnNhmPCTx1E4GlefjwXCYUiQ29ca6vt8598o6ADzHaIkRwm92utdLgrBYEkroA7DAnMqCciUfggVCShYlk-wEPElph_LBtHwMTkiJEGGML8CvM-dsO8Lg4Ec_GDd1g02pWOtkDfwyxlzAC2umdvRhgIcEq_Bt8KM_WLi2W33wIeoOXm5t1PsbGCK8SlN-qHS0MAvWuv0OP2s_QD0YeD4Nf3wysPG9H_VcJJi7KzN1Y4Jf_biF1TaGwbdwE37807-FK3iRPULvf-bNqs5nZJ4cve6egkdOd8k-u71PwdX52WX1vth8evehWm0KzZAcC9toKVqDpGqMtMphITlXxCBknFGOt4LaRhhnBcaCEEMQEYi0zjDLNG04PQWvj777GK4nm8a696m1XacHG6ZUY1VmiZRM3I9KxJlSgtL70bLkghKkWEZf_YfuwhTzf86UxByrvHemlkeqjSGlaF29j77X8abGqJ5TU8-pqefU1HNqsuDlre3U9Nbc4X9jkoEXR2DW3XU5YhJj-httAsan</recordid><startdate>20160322</startdate><enddate>20160322</enddate><creator>Cherkin, Daniel C</creator><creator>Sherman, Karen J</creator><creator>Balderson, Benjamin H</creator><creator>Cook, Andrea J</creator><creator>Anderson, Melissa L</creator><creator>Hawkes, Rene J</creator><creator>Hansen, Kelly E</creator><creator>Turner, Judith A</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160322</creationdate><title>Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial</title><author>Cherkin, Daniel C ; Sherman, Karen J ; Balderson, Benjamin H ; Cook, Andrea J ; Anderson, Melissa L ; Hawkes, Rene J ; Hansen, Kelly E ; Turner, Judith A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a408t-eba86cd089bd8e9f1685592d00dfd9f5c63eb6dfe611622d202602cfd4e4a3b53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Behavior modification</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cognitive Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inpatient care</topic><topic>Intention to Treat Analysis</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - psychology</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - therapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mindfulness - methods</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><topic>Stress</topic><topic>Stress, Physiological</topic><topic>Stress, Psychological - therapy</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Washington</topic><topic>Yoga</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cherkin, Daniel C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherman, Karen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balderson, Benjamin H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Andrea J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Melissa L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawkes, Rene J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hansen, Kelly E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Judith A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cherkin, Daniel C</au><au>Sherman, Karen J</au><au>Balderson, Benjamin H</au><au>Cook, Andrea J</au><au>Anderson, Melissa L</au><au>Hawkes, Rene J</au><au>Hansen, Kelly E</au><au>Turner, Judith A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial</atitle><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><date>2016-03-22</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>315</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1240</spage><epage>1249</epage><pages>1240-1249</pages><issn>0098-7484</issn><eissn>1538-3598</eissn><coden>JAMAAP</coden><abstract>IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>27002445</pmid><doi>10.1001/jama.2016.2323</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0098-7484
ispartof JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2016-03, Vol.315 (12), p.1240-1249
issn 0098-7484
1538-3598
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1970268846
source MEDLINE; American Medical Association Journals
subjects Adult
Back pain
Behavior modification
Clinical trials
Cognitive Therapy - methods
Female
Humans
Inpatient care
Intention to Treat Analysis
Low Back Pain - psychology
Low Back Pain - therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Mindfulness - methods
Sample Size
Stress
Stress, Physiological
Stress, Psychological - therapy
Treatment Outcome
Washington
Yoga
Young Adult
title Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T21%3A34%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20Mindfulness-Based%20Stress%20Reduction%20vs%20Cognitive%20Behavioral%20Therapy%20or%20Usual%20Care%20on%20Back%20Pain%20and%20Functional%20Limitations%20in%20Adults%20With%20Chronic%20Low%20Back%20Pain:%20A%20Randomized%20Clinical%20Trial&rft.jtitle=JAMA%20:%20the%20journal%20of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Association&rft.au=Cherkin,%20Daniel%20C&rft.date=2016-03-22&rft.volume=315&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1240&rft.epage=1249&rft.pages=1240-1249&rft.issn=0098-7484&rft.eissn=1538-3598&rft.coden=JAMAAP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/jama.2016.2323&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4025702471%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781519622&rft_id=info:pmid/27002445&rft_ama_id=2504811&rfr_iscdi=true