Skip to main content
Download PDF

A digital values-based microintervention for chronic back pain patients: lessons learned from a randomised experimental single-case study

BMC Digital Health volume 1, Article number: 50 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Chronic pain usually lasts several years. During this time, value-oriented aspects of life often fade into the background in favour of coping with the pain, which is associated with a lower quality of life. Psychotherapeutic methods such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy can alleviate this. However, for those who suffer from chronic pain, access to such therapies is limited. Electronic health interventions provide access to evidence-based methods. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of a brief electronic values-based intervention on patients with chronic back pain.

Methods

A study with a replicated AB single-case experimental design was conducted with 28 participants suffering from chronic back pain. Participants answered daily questions concerning their pain intensity and quality of life (wellbeing, pain catastrophising, acceptance of chronic pain, engaged living) for 10 to 17 days. The subsequent mobile intervention on value-oriented activities lasted an additional 10 days. During this time, daily assessments continued. Our analysis was performed using a hierarchical two-level modelling approach as well as visual and descriptive analysis.

Results

The majority of participants did not measurably benefit from the intervention. Neither model-based inference nor visual analysis indicated plausible intervention effects. The results of one responder and one non-responder are presented. In their qualitative feedback, most participants described being satisfied with the intervention. The perceived usefulness of psychotherapy as a treatment for chronic back pain increased from pre- to post-intervention (p < .001, dz = 1.17).

Conclusions

This study shows that microinterventions for chronic back pain patients are feasible, but should be planned over a longer period of time to enable measurable changes. The electronic mobile format did not cause participants any difficulties.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05205889, date of registration: January 12, 2022.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

People suffering from chronic pain usually suffer from it for several years [1]. During that time, the attempt to cope with the pain often becomes their main life focus, meaning that values and goals in other aspects of life can recede into the background [2]. Deficient values-based goals and actions are related to a decline in quality of life [3]. The compromising of personally meaningful values and goals of chronic pain patients [4] is attributable to an unending cycle of weighing pain avoidance against the costs associated with the loss of these activities [5]. Since chronic pain is associated with physical disabilities, adjusting one’s goals to one’s own functional abilities is an important treatment component when specific goals become unattainable [6]. A central element is therefore to reduce the effort required to achieve unattainable goals while simultaneously identifying and pursuing new, values-based and attainable goals [7].

In this regard, accepting one’s own chronic pain and related functional limitations as well as pursuing values-oriented activities are two essential processes. Acceptance refers to the willingness to accept unpleasant emotions and perceptions without succumbing to the tendency to control them. Values-based action involves aligning one’s actions with personally meaningful purposes [8].

Both acceptance and values-based actions are important elements of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) [8]. ACT is an intensively-researched therapy method [9] that appears to be effective in treating chronic pain [10] with even very brief interventions having positive effects [11]. Low-threshold self-help interventions for patients also seem to help [12]. Despite these positive findings, the treatment of chronic pain remains a challenge—on the one hand, because effect sizes have stagnated for so long [13] and, on the other hand, because it is difficult for many patients, especially in rural areas, to even access therapy because of various barriers [14].

Electronic health interventions such as health apps can be helpful tools in overcoming these challenges [15]. Due to the widespread use of smartphones, pain apps have the potential to reach many users within a short period of time [16], thus enabling evidence-based interventions to disseminate quickly. Two recent meta-analyses demonstrate that health apps can have a positive impact on pain intensity and pain catastrophising [17]. However, it is not clear which elements of pain apps are accountable for the positive results.

Digital microinterventions provide a useful way of measuring the effectiveness of specific interventions that may be relevant for change. Microinterventions are brief, focused interventions that are easily incorporated within everyday life [18]. There is already research evidence on this topic: Microinterventions can, for instance, help regulate mood [19], increase body satisfaction [20] and promote prosocial behaviour [21]. Microinterventions may also have positive effects on people with chronic pain [22]. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of a mobile microintervention on acceptance and values-based action for people with chronic back pain. To investigate this research question, we applied a single-case experimental design (SCED). SCEDs are study designs in which individuals are observed over a longer period of time with regard to at least one manipulated variable [23]. SCEDs are suitable for testing whether a microintervention is successful [24], and they can help in developing new interventions [25]. The microintervention was conducted on a daily basis over a period of ten days. We chose to use a SCED because it allows us to track potential changes on a daily basis. This enables us to assess whether a certain intervention content leads to a change in observed outcome variables.

Methods

Study design

This study used a replicated AB single-case experimental design with a randomised intervention starting point [26]. Baseline phase (A) varied between 10 and 17 days and served as a control per participant. The intervention phase (B) consisted of 10 daily measures (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study design and assessments. It is hypothesised that the baseline phase will be stable and that during intervention phase, pain intensity and pain catastrophising will decrease whereas psychological wellbeing, pain acceptance and engaged living measures will increase. During baseline and intervention phase, daily measures are presented via 11-point Likert-type scales

Full size image

The study protocol followed the Declaration of Helsinki’s tenets and was approved by the local ethics committee at the department of psychology of Philipps University of Marburg (2021-85v). The study was preregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT05205889).

Participants and recruitment

Recruitment took place from February 2022 to April 2022. Participants were recruited through a mailing list consisting of pain patients who had already expressed interest in pain research. Recruitment was also facilitated by posts on social media and online forums. Inclusion criteria were: 1: minimum 18 years of age; 2: chronic back pain (≥ 6 months); 3: pain intensity matching a minimum score of 4 on a 11-point numerical rating scale; 4: access to a smartphone or tablet. Participants were excluded if their back pain was tumour-related.

Since there appears to be no meaningful difference between patients suffering from pain for more than 3 months, compared to more than 6 months [27], we chose the inclusion criteria of longer duration, as did other recent studies [28]. Pain intensity ≥ 4 was chosen in order to include participants suffering from clinically relevant chronic back pain [29, 30]. As with the chosen pain duration criteria, we wanted to ensure that people with chronic back pain who were significantly impaired by their pain participated in our study. Figure 2 illustrates the enrolment course and drop-outs.

Fig. 2
figure 2

CONSORT flow diagram of enrolment

Full size image

Intervention

The unguided, values-based and goal-focused intervention consisted of ten modules which included text, audio, and animated video files. The intervention was optimised to be completed digitally via smartphone or tablet. The overarching aim of the intervention was to support participants in developing values and values-based actions despite their pain. Each module took no longer than 15 min to complete. A detailed description of the intervention modules is found in Table 1.

Table 1 Description of the intervention modules
Full size table

Measures

All variables were assessed on a daily basis throughout each baseline and intervention phase via extracted items from established questionnaires. Additionally, daily measures were supplemented by taking pre- and post-measurements.

Pre-and post-measures

Pre-measurements were taken before each participants’ individual baseline phase began, and post-measurements after completion of the final intervention module.

Pain intensity was assessed via a 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). The endpoints of the scales ranged from “no pain at all” to “the worst imaginable pain”. The NRS is a sensitive, valid, reliable, and easily administered scale, which is commonly used for pain assessment [31].

The 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) [32] was used to capture psychological general wellbeing. The WHO-5 is an economical tool of adequate validity which assesses subjective wellbeing on a 6-point Likert scale [33]. The German version shows excellent reliability (α = 0.92) [34]. Moreover, the WHO-5 is sensitive to change over time [33].

Pain catastrophising was assessed using the German version [35] of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) [36]. The questionnaire assesses pain-related catastrophising thinking and behaviour through 13 items on a 5-point Likert scale. The German version of the PCS possesses excellent reliability (α = 0.92) and adequate validity [35].

To assess chronic pain acceptance, we employed the 8-item version of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire [37] (CPAQ-8), known for showing adequate to good reliability (α = 0.72 – 0.89). Translated items were taken from the validated German version [38].

We employed the Engaged Living Scale (ELS) [39] to assess an engaged response style as conceived in ACT [8]. The ELS consists of 16 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale and ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”. The ELS demonstrates excellent reliability (α = 0.92 in a sample of chronic pain patients). Since there was no validated German version of the ELS, we had a non-psychologist native English speaker translate the questionnaire into German.

Additionally, participants were asked for how long they had been suffering from chronic pain and if they were taking medication for their pain. We also asked them to rate how useful psychotherapy seemed as a treatment for chronic pain (pre and post, 5-point Likert scale). After completing the last intervention module, participants were able to give us feedback on the course.

Items for daily measurements

Daily measures consisted of 8 items, which were extracted from the questionnaires used for pre- and post-measurements (Table 2). Selection criteria for the items were high factor loading on the relevant factor as well as an adequate verbal representation of the construct we aimed to assess. All items were presented on a 11-point Likert scale with verbally anchored scale endpoints.

Table 2 Daily measures
Full size table

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses included the analysis of daily measures (individual and group level) as well as visual and descriptive analyses.

Daily measures

Since observations are nested within participants, it is necessary to take this hierarchical two-level structure into account [40]. MultiSCED, a tool specifically developed to analyse hierarchical SCED data taking a multilevel modelling approach [41], was used in our study for appropriate data analysis. Aggregated results from a two-level model make it feasible to generalise across cases. Individual one-level models offer regression-based parameter estimations for treatment effects during each participant’s intervention phase (for more detailed information on MultiSCED, please refer to Declercq and colleagues, 2020 [41]).

Since we employed a replicated single-case AB phase design, conventional power considerations do not apply [40]. Moreover, sample size recommendations for multilevel analyses are typically not strict in terms of the assumed validity of the fixed effects [41]. Thus, considering the traditionally low number of cases in SCEDs [42], the sample size of n = 28 participants can be seen as a robust base for generalisation.

Visual and descriptive analysis

Visual analysis usually plays a major role in single-case data analysis [43]. As in the study conducted by Simons and colleagues, raw data graphs for a treatment responder and non-responder were created to illustrate individual study courses. To determine if changes resulted from the implemented intervention and to systemise visual analysis, we relied on visual inspection criteria [43]. To quantify the magnitude of observed effects, nonoverlap of all pairs (NAP) effect sizes [44] were calculated, which equal the area under the curve (AUC) from a receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis [45].

Lastly, we checked whether the intervention led to a significant change in the perceived usefulness of psychotherapy for treating chronic pain by calculating a paired samples t-test with pre- and post-intervention means. We also analysed qualitative participant feedback descriptively.

Results

First, we describe participant characteristics. The results are then organised around the aggregated two-level results first, providing model-based inference regarding the mean change that occurs during the microintervention’s course. Individual treatment courses are then highlighted by providing one-level results for one treatment responder and one non-responder, accompanied by visual analysis. Finally, we report the participants’ feedback on the microintervention.

Participant characteristics

As indicated in Fig. 2, we analysed data of n = 28 participants. Our sample was predominantly female (85.7%), and participants had a mean age of 47 years (SD = 11.1). The participants had been suffering from chronic back pain for an average 15.6 years (SD = 10.6), and 60% of the sample were taking medication because of their pain. In the week preceding enrolment, their average pain intensity was 6.2 (SD = 1.7) on a 11-point NRS (Table 3).

Table 3 Participant characteristics
Full size table

Model-based inference

The one-level model per outcome and individual is described below, with subscript \(i\) specifying the measurement nested within a case

$${\Upsilon}_{i}={\beta }_{0}+{\beta }_{1}{Time}_{i}+{\beta }_{2}{Phase}_{i}+{\beta }_{3}\left({Time}_{i}\times {Phase}_{i}\right)+{e}_{i}$$

The two-level model per outcome is described as

$${\Upsilon}_{ij}={\beta }_{0j}+{\beta }_{1j}{Time}_{ij}+{\beta }_{2j}{Phase}_{ij}+{\beta }_{3j}\left({Time}_{ij}\times {Phase}_{ij}\right)+{e}_{ij}$$

with the additional subscript \(j\) denoting case \(j\) within the study. To facilitate a more comprehensive interpretation, the time variable was centered around the first day of the intervention.

Aggregated multilevel modelling results of daily measures

On average, the baseline level for all outcomes is between 4 to 6 on the 11-point scale (Table 4). No average immediate effect on any of the outcomes is apparent at the beginning of the intervention phase. Likewise, we observed no significant treatment effect on the respective slopes for pain intensity, psychological wellbeing, or pain acceptance. We did, however, detect the microintervention’s effect on the slopes of pain catastrophising and engaged living. The pain catastrophising score fell on average by 0.06 units per intervention day (p < 0.05). A similar pattern appears for the engaged living scale, which showed an average 0.07 units-per-day increase (p < 0.05).

Table 4 Two-level model estimations for outcomes from baseline to intervention
Full size table

Individual treatment courses

The individual treatment courses we observed and one-level results concur with the two-level results we report. We detected no significant or plausible effects of the intervention on individual intercepts or slopes regarding most participants and outcomes. The majority of treatment courses revealed either strong fluctuations in the baseline and treatment phases, or very little variability in the daily measures. The limited variability concerns in particular the items assessing pain catastrophising, pain acceptance, and engaged living.

The treatment course of one responder (ID 15) revealed an immediate intervention effect on the level of pain acceptance and engaged living measure. After the intervention started, we note an increase by 1.55 units (p = 0.01) and 4.10 units (p < 0.001) in pain acceptance and engaged living, respectively. Moreover, pain acceptance rose on average by 0.32 units (p = 0.001) and engaged living by 0.48 units per intervention day (p = 0.001). For psychological wellbeing however, we observed a significant treatment effect on the slope, indicating an average decrease per day by 0.29 units (p < 0.05). Pain intensity and pain catastrophizing revealed no significant effects.

As the graph of ID 15 illustrates (Fig. 3), baseline and intervention phases for most scales do not appear to be stable, which makes it harder to interpret regression coefficients and draw valid conclusions. Moreover, even though significant effects have been obtained through MultiSCED, the extent of pain acceptance and engaged living barely exceeds those measures’ baseline levels. This further weakens the impression of meaningful intervention effects, regardless of their statistical significance.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Treatment course of a responder. Vertical line indicates phase change. Pain measured via NRS; Wellbeing, WHO-5; Pain Acceptance, CPAQ-8; Engaged Living, ELS; Pain Catastrophising, PCS

Full size image

Visual inspection of daily measures of ID 15 reveals adequate variability within measures, however, no stable baseline could be documented. The only seemingly stable construct is pain acceptance, which remained on a medium level until the end of the baseline phase. A slight downward trend is apparent regarding engaged living. Wellbeing reveals an unchanged fluctuation level across phases regardless of the intervention start. Concordant with one-level results, only pain acceptance and engaged living changed meaningfully at the beginning of the intervention, stabilising on a relatively high level until the end of the treatment course (Acceptance NAP = 0.89 (95%-CI = 0.69 to 0.97); Engaged living NAP = 0.89 (95%-CI = 0.69 to 0.97)).

Figure 4 depicts a non-responder’s treatment course (ID 17). Apart from one statistically significant effect of the intervention on the slope (NRS, β3 = 0.32, p = 0.002) associated with the upward trend in measured pain intensity during the intervention phase, we observed no intervention effects on the slopes of outcome measures. Baseline phases of all measures apart from pain intensity seem relatively stable, and the microintervention’s introduction triggers no change. Throughout the baseline and intervention phase, catastrophising remains on a high level, engaged living and wellbeing on a medium level, pain acceptance on a relatively low level. Pain intensity fluctuates between values 5 and 8, seemingly irrespective of phases. All individual graphs are available as supplemental digital content (Figure S1).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Treatment course of a non-responder. Vertical line indicates phase change. Pain measured via NRS; Wellbeing, WHO-5; Pain Acceptance, CPAQ-8; Engaged Living, ELS; Pain Catastrophising, PCS

Full size image

Inferring from their mean values, our participants found the intervention to be useful (M = 3.85; SD = 1.17) and that the integration of individually chosen values worked well (M = 4.36; SD = 0.81). Fourteen participants (50%) provided qualitative feedback on the intervention. Central to the positive feedback was the notion that the microintervention is a beneficial and useful reminder about values-based living, one that is easy to integrate into daily life (n = 4). Their constructive feedback concerned the length of the intervention (too long, n = 1; too short, n = 1) and the desire for more pain-focused psychoeducation (n = 1). Two participants found the intervention to be too general, not addressing complex pain syndromes sufficiently. A comprehensive table (Table S1) illustrating all feedback is available as supplemental digital content. The results of the paired samples t-test indicate a significant difference between the perceived usefulness of psychotherapy before the start of the microintervention (M = 3.65; SD = 0.94) and after its completion (M = 4.62; SD = 0.90; t(25) = -5.95, p ≤ 0.001; dz = 1.17).

Discussion

The aim of this single-case pilot study was to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of a brief values-based microintervention in a sample of chronic back pain patients. In particular, we assumed we would observe the intervention’s positive impact on pain intensity, pain acceptance, and engaged living, as well as catastrophising and wellbeing. Although individual participants benefited on individual scales, we were unable to demonstrate our intervention’s effectiveness overall. The variance of individual items of the daily measurements revealed little variation for many participants. In contrast, some subjects showed a considerable amount of variation in their answers, which, however, could not be linked to the intervention. In their qualitative feedback, participants were generally positive about the microintervention. The perceived usefulness of psychotherapy in alleviating chronic pain increased after the intervention.

When comparing the responder to the non-responder, we initially notice that the non-responders demonstrated less overall variability in their daily measurements. The non-responder’s course was characterised by high catastrophising and low acceptance. Pain catastrophising plays a major role in the perception of pain intensity and psychological distress [46]. Whereas a certain acceptance of pain is associated with better pain coping [47] and is considered a prerequisite for values-oriented actions [48]. Both constructs were already lower (catastrophising) or higher (acceptance) in the responder before the intervention. These initial baseline values could have influenced their entire pattern of daily measurements. Accordingly, it is possible that the intervention was too advanced for the non-responder. Furthermore, note that the responders’ values concerning engaged living and wellbeing fluctuate in the opposite direction with pain intensity. Since less pain intensity correlates with increased activity [49], it is possible that the low variability in most of the non-responders’ scales is associated with their low variability in pain intensity.

Pain intensity tends to be a difficult construct to change. Psychotherapeutic treatments are known to have minimal if any effect on pain intensity [50]. Recently, the relevance of positive expectancy as a transdiagnostic factor has come increasingly into research focus [51]. Hope also plays an important role in chronic pain [52]. Accordingly, we hypothesised that the positive expectation of being able to experience a more engaged life again may lead to a small reduction in pain. As other online interventions have revealed positive effects on pain intensity compared to a waiting list control group [53], we suspect that our intervention was too short to enable a similar reduction in pain intensity.

We identified one responder for the pain acceptance and engaged living scales, but we detected no moderators as to why that particular subject responded positively to our intervention. Since values and acceptance are closely related [54] and the importance of acceptance of chronic back pain was repeatedly addressed in the intervention, we assumed that an increased values orientation would also lead to an increase in acceptance. From our survey, we conclude that a brief mobile course addressing the topic of acceptance and values-based action is insufficient to stimulate sustainable change in this regard. This conclusion is also supported by the observation that, according to patient reports, the acceptance of chronic pain is a process that takes a long time and also fluctuates over time [55]. In addition, the responses in the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire generally showed little variance.

Maintaining life activities despite pain is closely associated with both the acceptance of chronic pain and one’s wellbeing [48]. Our hypothesis was that becoming aware of one’s own values in an aspect of life would already lead to greater wellbeing, for example through a positive expectation to implement these values in the future [56]. On the basis of this study’s findings, however, we assume that the subsequent and repeated action-oriented integration of these values into everyday life may be the more important factor. However, as wellbeing is a relatively stable construct over shorter periods of time [57], we believe that our interventions may have been be too brief to enable measurable change, or that changes only become apparent within a certain time span.

Since activity can reduce pain catastrophising [58], we hypothesised that values-based activity might have a similar effect. However, we did not monitor which activity the participants were engaged in. Since they were given only two activity tasks, we suspect that the activities were too brief to generate change. As psychoeducation about pain can reduce catastrophising [59], it might be helpful to precede future interventions with pain education. This was also requested in the qualitative feedback we received.

The results of this study provide valuable lessons for designing related surveys, as previous studies with similar content have demonstrated positive effects [53]. Rickardsson and colleagues successfully examined the effectiveness of an internet-based ACT intervention. Our survey failed to replicate their positive results, for example in terms of pain intensity and values. However, there were noticeable differences between these two studies: firstly, the study by Rickardsson and colleagues was conducted for 8 weeks, thus allowing for more extensive content to be conveyed. Secondly, their patients received feedback, support, and reminders. Thirdly, all their participants had at least one brief but direct contact with a therapist per week. Their intervention also involved much higher levels of exposure, which is an effective therapy component [60]. In direct comparison, the most obvious difference is that our study was much shorter and involved no human contact. Lin and colleagues [61] also demonstrated that an internet-based ACT intervention can yield positive results. However, at 7 weeks, their intervention was also much longer than ours. Their individual modules took about 60 min each. Therefore, our intervention was probably not long enough to reveal an improvement in the constructs we assessed. In addition, their study involved a guided condition with human involvement, which was also desired in some of the feedback we received.

Electronic health applications will certainly have a stronger impact on the field of medicine in the future [62]. They therefore deserve much more research. Although there have been promising studies on the effectiveness of eHealth in general [63] and health apps in particular [64], high quality evidence is still lacking on their overall effectiveness [17] and the effectiveness of individual components [65]. From our study results, we cannot conclude that values-based actions and pain acceptance are ineffective eHealth components. Based on the qualitative feedback we received, we conclude that shorter interventions could also find acceptance among subjects. Microinterventions could function as supportive measures before psychotherapy, or to enhance the perceived usefulness of psychotherapy as a treatment for chronic pain. However, we cautiously conclude that assessing individual components may not perform well when taking our microintervention approach of addressing a single topic in a relatively short period of time. Instead, longer-term interventions seem to be better suited to create measurable change. In addition, qualitative analyses can help to extract effective components.

Our study has some limitations. First, the assessment of all constructs was based solely on self-report by our predominantly female sample. Furthermore, there was little variance in some scales during baseline and intervention phases, which could be due to our item selection, social desirability, or the assessment of relatively stable constructs. We did not assess neither type nor amount of pain medication that the participants took, which would have been helpful in order to estimate the impact that the medication could have had on the outcomes that we measured. Moreover, we only asked the subjects at the end whether they had done the tasks in the course, but we could not verify their answers’ accuracy. Furthermore, participants could freely choose when they engaged in their daily assessments, which could have led to an assessment bias. Since pain intensity often fluctuates during the day, it would be plausible to assume that participants filled out the questionnaire when they were feeling relatively pain-free, preventing reliable measurements. Having only implemented two phases, the single-case design we chose enabled little generalisation. Furthermore, it would have been beneficial to have chronic back pain patients participate in developing the course.

Conclusion

The majority of participants in our study were satisfied with the microintervention, and stated that they benefited from the focus on personally meaningful values; furthermore, we observed an increase in the perceived usefulness of psychotherapy as a treatment for chronic pain. At the same time, we failed to observe such positive results in the daily measures. Future research could assess the minimum duration of chronic pain programmes to bring about clinically meaningful change and investigate whether narrowly focused microinterventions are beneficial as a low-threshold treatment prior to psychotherapy. Future single-case studies investigating microinterventions could begin by testing the trial’s feasibility. This would ensure the adequacy of single items used for daily measures. Studies employing a SCED should also make use of the few brief assessment scales that have been developed especially for single-case studies, such as the 3-item Brief Acceptance Measure [66], which facilitates a brief assessment without having to use single items of larger instruments. To minimise the risk of biased assessments, future studies could include ecological momentary assessment features which could facilitate more frequent measures during the day without being too burdensome for participants.

Availability of data and materials

All data used and reported in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ACT:

Acceptance and commitment therapy

AUC:

Area under the curve

NAP:

Nonoverlap of all pairs

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

SCED:

Single-case experimental design

SMART:

Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound

References

  1. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:287–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dahl J. Acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain. 1st ed. Nevada: Context Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Edwards DJ. Age, pain Intensity, values-discrepancy, and mindfulness as predictors for mental health and cognitive fusion: hierarchical regressions with mediation analysis. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ramírez-Maestre C, Esteve R, López-Martínez AE, Serrano-Ibáñez ER, Ruiz-Párraga GT, Peters M. Goal adjustment and well-being: the role of optimism in patients with chronic pain. Ann Behav Med. 2019;53:597–607. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kay070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance model of chronic musculoskeletal pain: 12 years on. Pain. 2012;153:1144–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.12.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Damme S, Crombez G, Eccleston C. Coping with pain: a motivational perspective. Pain. 2008;139:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2008.07.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Crombez G, Eccleston C, Van Damme S, Vlaeyen JWS, Karoly P. Fear-avoidance model of chronic pain: The next generation. Clin J Pain. 2012;28:475–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182385392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hughes LS, Clark J, Colclough JA, Dale E, McMillan D. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2017;33:552–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gloster AT, Walder N, Levin ME, Twohig MP, Karekla M. The empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy: a review of meta-analyses. J Context Behav Sci. 2020;18:181–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Veehof MM, Trompetter HR, Bohlmeijer ET, Schreurs KMG. Acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a meta-analytic review. Cogn Behav Ther. 2016;45:5–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1098724.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahl J, Wilson KG, Nilsson A. Acceptance and commitment therapy and the treatment of persons at risk for long-term disability resulting from stress and pain symptoms: a preliminary randomized trial. Behav Ther. 2004;35:785–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80020-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnston M, Foster M, Shennan J, Starkey NJ, Johnson A. The effectiveness of an acceptance and commitment therapy Self-help Intervention for chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2010;26:393–402. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181cf59ce.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morley S, Williams A, Eccleston C. Examining the evidence about psychological treatments for chronic pain: time for a paradigm shift? Pain. 2013;154:1929–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.05.049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Becker WC, Dorflinger L, Edmond SN, Islam L, Heapy AA, Fraenkel L. Barriers and facilitators to use of non-pharmacological treatments in chronic pain. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18:41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0608-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Holmes EA, Ghaderi A, Harmer CJ, Ramchandani PG, Cuijpers P, Morrison AP, et al. The lancet psychiatry commission on psychological treatments research in tomorrow’s science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5:237–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30513-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Demiris G, Afrin LB, Speedie S, Courtney KL, Sondhi M, Vimarlund V, et al. Patient-centered applications: use of information technology to promote disease management and wellness. A white paper by the Amia knowledge in motion working group. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2008;15:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pfeifer A-C, Uddin R, Schröder-Pfeifer P, Holl F, Swoboda W, Schiltenwolf M. Mobile application-based interventions for chronic pain patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3557. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9113557.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Baumel A, Fleming T, Schueller SM. Digital Micro Interventions for Behavioral and Mental Health Gains: Core Components and Conceptualization of Digital Micro Intervention Care. J Med Internet Res 2020;22. https://doi.org/10.2196/20631.

  19. Meinlschmidt G, Lee JH, Stalujanis E, Belardi A, Oh M, Jung EK, et al. Smartphone-based psychotherapeutic micro-interventions to improve mood in a real-world setting. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Richardson B, Lewis V, Linardon J, Mills J, Juknaitis K, et al. A randomized trial exploring mindfulness and gratitude exercises as eHealth-based micro-interventions for improving body satisfaction. Comput Human Behav. 2019;95:58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gloster AT, Rinner MTB, Meyer AH. Increasing prosocial behavior and decreasing selfishness in the lab and everyday life. Sci Rep. 2020;10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78251-z.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Flink IK, Smeets E, Bergboma S, Peters ML. Happy despite pain: pilot study of a positive psychology intervention for patients with chronic pain. Scand J Pain. 2015;7:71–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2015.01.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vlaeyen JWS, Wicksell RK, Simons LE, Gentili C, De TK, Tate RL, et al. From boulder to Stockholm in 70 Years: single case experimental designs in clinical research. Psychol Rec. 2020;70:659–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00402-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lavefjord A, Sundström FTA, Buhrman M, McCracken LM. Assessment methods in single case design studies of psychological treatments for chronic pain: A scoping review. J Context Behav Sci. 2021;21:121–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vlaeyen JW, de Jong J, Geilen M, Heuts PHT, van Breukelen G. Graded exposure in vivo in the treatment of pain-related fear: a replicated single-case experimental design in four patients with chronic low back pain. Behav Res Ther. 2001;39:151–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00174-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Michiels B, Onghena P. Randomized single-case AB phase designs: prospects and pitfalls. Behav Res Methods. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1084-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dunn KM, Croft PR. The importance of symptom duration in determining prognosis. Pain. 2006;121:126–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.12.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmitz J, Müller M, Stork J, Eichler I, Zöllner C, Flor H, et al. Positive treatment expectancies reduce clinical pain and perceived limitations in movement ability despite increased experimental pain: a randomized controlled trial on sham opioid infusion in patients with chronic back pain. Psychother Psychosom. 2019;88:203–14. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Boonstra AM, Stewart RE, Köke AJA, Oosterwijk RFA, Swaan JL, Schreurs KMG, et al. Cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain on the numeric rating scale for pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: variability and influence of sex and catastrophizing. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shafshak TS, Elnemr R. The visual analogue scale versus numerical rating scale in measuring pain severity and predicting disability in low back pain. JCR J Clin Rheumatol. 2021;27:282–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/RHU.0000000000001320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14:798–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five well-being scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12:85–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The who-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84:167–76. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Brähler E, Mühlan H, Albani C, Schmidt S. Teststatistische Prüfung und Normierung der deutschen Versionen des EUROHIS-QOL Lebensqualität-Index und des WHO-5 Wohlbefindens-Index. Diagnostica. 2007;53:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.53.2.83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Meyer K, Sprott H, Mannion AF. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the German version of the pain catastrophizing scale. J Psychosom Res. 2008;64:469–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.12.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:524–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McCracken LM, Vowles KE, Eccleston C. Accepfctance of chronic pain: component analysis and a revised assessment method. Pain. 2004;107:159–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2003.10.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nilges P, Köster B, Schmidt CO. Schmerzakzeptanz – Konzept und Überprüfung einer deutschen Fassung des Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire. Der Schmerz. 2007;21:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-006-0508-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Trompetter HR, ten Klooster PM, Schreurs KMG, Fledderus M, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET. Measuring values and committed action with the Engaged Living Scale (ELS): Psychometric evaluation in a nonclinical sample and a chronic pain sample. Psychol Assess. 2013;25:1235–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Simons L, Vlaeyen JWS, Declercq L, M Smith A, Beebe J, Hogan M, et al. Avoid or engage? Outcomes of graded exposure in youth with chronic pain using a sequential replicated single-case randomized design. Pain 2020;161:520–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001735.

  41. Declercq L, Cools W, Beretvas SN, Moeyaert M, Ferron JM, Van den Noortgate W. MultiSCED: A tool for (meta-)analyzing single-case experimental data with multilevel modeling. Behav Res Methods. 2020;52:177–92. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01216-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pustejovsky JE, Swan DM, English KW. An Examination of Measurement Procedures and Characteristics of Baseline Outcome Data in Single-Case Research. Behav Modif 2019:014544551986426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519864264.

  43. Kazdin AE. Single-case experimental designs Evaluating interventions in research and clinical practice. Behav Res Ther. 2019;117:3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.11.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Parker RI, Vannest K. An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behav Ther. 2009;40:357–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Parker RI, Vannest KJ, Davis JL. Effect size in single-case research: a review of nine Nonoverlap techniques. Behav Modif. 2011;35:303–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Severeijns R, Vlaeyen JWS, van den Hout MA, Weber WEJ. Pain catastrophizing predicts pain intensity, disability, and psychological distress independent of the level of physical impairment. Clin J Pain. 2001;17:165–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200106000-00009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Esteve R, Ramírez-Maestre C, López-Martínez AE. Adjustment to chronic pain: the role of pain acceptance, coping strategies, and pain-related cognitions. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33:179–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02879899.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kranz D, Bollinger A, Nilges P. Chronic pain acceptance and affective well-being: a coping perspective. Eur J Pain. 2010;14:1021–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.03.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hutchings A, Calloway M, Choy E, Hooper M, Hunter DJ, Jordan JM, et al. The Longitudinal Examination of Arthritis Pain (LEAP) study: relationships between weekly fluctuations in patient-rated joint pain and other health outcomes. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:2291–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Williams AC de C, Fisher E, Hearn L, Eccleston C. Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub4.

  51. Rief W, Anna GJ. The role of expectations in mental disorders and their treatment. World Psychiatry. 2017;16:210–1. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20427.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Katsimigos A-M, O’Beirne S, Harmon D. Hope and chronic pain—a systematic review. Irish J Med Sci (1971 -) 2021;190:307–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02251-1

  53. Rickardsson J, Gentili C, Holmström L, Zetterqvist V, Andersson E, Persson J, et al. Internet-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy as microlearning for chronic pain: A randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Eur J Pain. 2021;25:1012–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1723.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. McCracken LM, Vowles KE. A prospective analysis of acceptance of pain and values-based action in patients with chronic pain. Heal Psychol. 2008;27:215–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. LaChapelle DL, Lavoie S, Boudreau A. The meaning and process of pain acceptance perceptions of women living with arthritis and fibromyalgia. Pain Res Manag. 2008;13:201–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/258542.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Vilhauer JS, Young S, Kealoha C, Borrmann J, Ishak WW, Rapaport MH, et al. Treating major depression by creating positive expectations for the future: a pilot study for the effectiveness of Future-Directed Therapy (FDT) on symptom severity and quality of life. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2012;18:102–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-5949.2011.00235.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chamberlain K, Zika S. Stability and change in subjective well-being over short time periods. Soc Indic Res. 1992;26:101–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00304394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Vincent HK, George SZ, Seay AN, Vincent KR, Hurley RW. Resistance exercise, disability, and pain catastrophizing in obese adults with back pain. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2014;46:1693–701. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Moseley GL, Nicholas MK, Hodges PW. A Randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:324–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200409000-00007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Glombiewski JA, Holzapfel S, Riecke J, Vlaeyen JWS, de Jong J, Lemmer G, et al. Exposure and CBT for chronic back pain: an RCT on differential efficacy and optimal length of treatment. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018;86:533–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lin J, Paganini S, Sander L, Lüking M, Ebert DD, Buhrman M, et al. An internet-based intervention for chronic pain. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2017.0681.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Seyhan AA, Carini C. Are innovation and new technologies in precision medicine paving a new era in patients centric care? J Transl Med. 2019;17:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1864-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Mikolasek M, Berg J, Witt CM, Barth J. Effectiveness of mindfulness- and relaxation-based eHealth interventions for patients with medical conditions: a systematic review and synthesis. Int J Behav Med. 2018;25:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-017-9679-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Toelle TR, Utpadel-Fischler DA, Haas K-K, Priebe JA. App-based multidisciplinary back pain treatment versus combined physiotherapy plus online education: a randomized controlled trial. Npj Digit Med. 2019;2:34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0109-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Vugts MAP, Joosen MCW, van der Geer JE, Zedlitz AMEE, Vrijhoef HJM. The effectiveness of various computer-based interventions for patients with chronic pain or functional somatic syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0196467. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196467.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Assmann L, Pasi HJ, Gillanders DT, Mottus R. The Brief Acceptance Measure: development and initial validation of an ultra-brief measure of psychological flexibility, suitable for daily use. Paper presented at The Chester Contextual Behavioural Science Research Colloquium. UK: University of Chester; 2018. https://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40814-019-0488-4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Nicola Foltz for her assistance in creating the survey and recruiting subjects. We are also grateful to Nora Jander for her excellent recording of the audio files.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors declare no external funding for this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Simon Felix Zerth and Hauke Jeldrik Hein these authors share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Simon Felix Zerth, Hauke Jeldrik Hein, Winfried Rief & Jenny Riecke

  2. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany

    Julia Anna Glombiewski

Authors
  1. Simon Felix Zerth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hauke Jeldrik Hein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julia Anna Glombiewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Winfried Rief
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jenny Riecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HJH, JR: inception and design of the study, drafting the protocol; SFZ: data acquisition, data analyses; HJH, SFZ: drafting of the manuscript, data interpretation; JAG, JR, WR: supervision, manuscript editing, reviewing; JR: project administration. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Felix Zerth.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Research involving human subjects complied with all relevant national regulations, institutional policies and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration (as amended in 2013), and has been approved by the authors' Institutional Review Board (local ethics committee at the department of psychology of Philipps University of Marburg, reference number: 2021-85v). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Figure S1 to S28. Individual treatment courses of ID 1 to ID 28.

Additional file 2:

Table S1. Qualitative feedback on the microintervention.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zerth, S.F., Hein, H.J., Glombiewski, J.A. et al. A digital values-based microintervention for chronic back pain patients: lessons learned from a randomised experimental single-case study. BMC Digit Health 1, 50 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44247-023-00053-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s44247-023-00053-w

Keywords

BMC Digital Health

ISSN: 2731-684X

Contact us