Network-Based vs. Standardized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Chronic Primary Pain
NCT ID: NCT06784141
Last Updated: 2025-05-01
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
NA
75 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-04-30
2027-04-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
In a balanced repeated measures design, a personalized CBT intervention is compared with a standardized CBT intervention. Participants are patients with CPP in German outpatient clinics. Primary and secondary outcome measures (disability, treatment expectations, pain intensity, working alliance, and side effects) will be collected after each study period. In addition, a SCED with randomized baselines will be embedded in the study, in which changes in processes relevant to chronic pain will be evaluated.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Personalising Psychotherapy for Chronic Primary Pain Using Network Analysis
NCT06179784
Single-Case Study on Therapeutic Change in Chronic Low Back Pain
NCT03157622
Comparing Single-Session Therapies for Chronic Pain
NCT07008105
Comparative Mechanisms of Psychosocial Chronic Pain Treatments
NCT02133976
Cognitive-behavioural Treatment of Chronic Back Pain
NCT00454064
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Personalized CBT will achieve a comparable treatment effect to the standardized CBT condition, i.e. a stronger reduction in the outcome measures (intercept and slope).
Participants:
Recruitment takes place at selected university outpatient clinics throughout Germany. Patients will be recruited via the waiting list of the university's outpatient clinic, in cooperation with other currently running studies at the same university recruiting chronic pain patients, and via various media (e.g. newspaper articles) and doctors' offices. Study therapists will be recruited in the university's outpatient clinic as well. Inclusion criteria for patients are at least 18 years of age, having access to a smartphone, and the main diagnosis of chronic pain. The diagnosis will be checked using the brief version of the Diagnostic Interview for Mental Disorders (Mini-DIPS). For patients recruited via the waiting list, screening for suitability will take place during the first consultation at the university psychotherapy training center's outpatient clinic. Suitable participants will be informed about the study and referred if they agree to be contacted. Furthermore, patients that had to be excluded from other currently running studies will be referred if they agreed to be contacted as well.
Procedure \& Measures:
Counterbalanced Repeated Measures Design: At this level, the primary outcome measure is pain disability index (PDI) and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). Therapeutic alliance (Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ), Working Alliance Inventory Short Revised (WAI-R); both therapist and patient version) and side effects (Negative Effects Questionnaire, NEQ) as well as expectations (Patient Questionnaire on Therapy Expectation and Evaluation, PATHEV) are collected as secondary outcome variables. These are collected before and after the diagnostic phase (A), after both interventions (C1, C2) and at follow-up (3 months). The HAQ, WAI-R, and NEQ constitute exceptions in this context. As these instruments pertain to the therapeutic relationship or the overall therapy process, they are not administered prior to the diagnostic phase, since no therapeutic contact has yet taken place. In addition, the therapist's case concept and a Perceived Causal Network (PECAN) of the therapist are collected after the diagnostic phase. Additional outcome measures are collected before the diagnostic phase (A), before the 3th baseline (B3) and at follow-up. As additional outcome measures the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21), the German Pain Solutions Questionnaire (PaSol), the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire will be assed.
SCED: The participants begin with the standard diagnostic phase of routine clinical care (phase B, 5 sessions) with psychoeducation and the development of therapy goals. After a randomized baseline (phase A1, 1-3 weeks), the intervention phase (phase C) begins. Participants are randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group 1 begins with personalized CBT followed by standardized CBT whereas Group 2 begins with standardized CBT followed by personalized CBT. A second baseline takes place in both groups after the first intervention before the beginning of the second intervention (A2, randomized 1-3 weeks). After the two different therapeutic phases, another baseline (A3, 2 weeks) and afterwards an EMA phase of 3 weeks will be completed. In addition, there are two booster sessions with the therapist one and three months after the last therapy session. During the EMA phases, data will be collected 6 times per day. In all other phases, the questionnaires are asked 3 times a week.
Analysis:
To evaluate group differences, a multilevel analysis (MLM) is calculated to take the nested data structure into account. The effects within the individual participant are calculated at level 1 and across the participants at level 2. To determine the required sample size, we performed a data simulation assuming a normal distribution with two predictors in the MLM: Treatment and order of treatment. The simulation revealed that a sample size of 59 participants is required, with a power of 0.80 aimed for to detect small effect sizes. Based on the dropout rate observed in a previous pilot study, a sample size of N = 75 is planned.
The Bayes Factor and visual analysis are used to continuously evaluate the intervention effect at the individual level. In the visual analysis, we look at level, trend, variability, immediacy, overlap, and consistency.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
First standardized, second personalized CBT
In this study arm, patients will first receive standardized and then personalized CBT. In the standardized CBT phase, a standardized CBT protocol will take place. In the personalized intervention phase, person-specific networks are estimated. A network-based algorithm indicates the treatment target. Participants will receive one out of ten CBT modules addressing their treatment target. A hybrid therapy option, i.e., partially online, will be available. The decision lies with the respective therapists and will be documented as a variable.
personalized Cognitive Behavior Therapy including third-wave
In the personalized CBT, patients first complete 21 days of EMA with six assessment points daily to assess relevant processes of CPP models. Person-specific networks are estimated based on the EMA data. A network-based algorithm indicates the treatment target. The individual CBT modules are selected for the participants from a matching matrix that contains experts' module recommendations for specific treatment targets. After that, participants will receive one out of ten CBT modules addressing their treatment target. All treatment modules are based on evaluated treatment manuals and contain methods from Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Mindful Selfcompassion.
standardized Cognitive Behavior Therapy including third-wave
The standardized CBT intervention is manual-based and contains five sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy. Based on the evaluated manual from EFFECT Back, a short version with 5 modules is used: attention control, relaxation techniques, behavioral activation, cognitive strategies, and consolidation.
First personalized, second standardized CBT
In this study arm, patients will first receive standardized and then personalized CBT. In the personalized intervention phase, person-specific networks are estimated. A network-based algorithm indicates the treatment target. Participants will receive one out of ten CBT modules addressing their treatment target. In the standardized CBT phase, a manualized, standardized CBT will take place. A hybrid therapy option, i.e., partially online, will be available. The decision lies with the respective therapists and will be documented as a variable.
personalized Cognitive Behavior Therapy including third-wave
In the personalized CBT, patients first complete 21 days of EMA with six assessment points daily to assess relevant processes of CPP models. Person-specific networks are estimated based on the EMA data. A network-based algorithm indicates the treatment target. The individual CBT modules are selected for the participants from a matching matrix that contains experts' module recommendations for specific treatment targets. After that, participants will receive one out of ten CBT modules addressing their treatment target. All treatment modules are based on evaluated treatment manuals and contain methods from Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Mindful Selfcompassion.
standardized Cognitive Behavior Therapy including third-wave
The standardized CBT intervention is manual-based and contains five sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy. Based on the evaluated manual from EFFECT Back, a short version with 5 modules is used: attention control, relaxation techniques, behavioral activation, cognitive strategies, and consolidation.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
personalized Cognitive Behavior Therapy including third-wave
In the personalized CBT, patients first complete 21 days of EMA with six assessment points daily to assess relevant processes of CPP models. Person-specific networks are estimated based on the EMA data. A network-based algorithm indicates the treatment target. The individual CBT modules are selected for the participants from a matching matrix that contains experts' module recommendations for specific treatment targets. After that, participants will receive one out of ten CBT modules addressing their treatment target. All treatment modules are based on evaluated treatment manuals and contain methods from Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Mindful Selfcompassion.
standardized Cognitive Behavior Therapy including third-wave
The standardized CBT intervention is manual-based and contains five sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy. Based on the evaluated manual from EFFECT Back, a short version with 5 modules is used: attention control, relaxation techniques, behavioral activation, cognitive strategies, and consolidation.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* subjective impairment/disability (yes-no)
* access to a smartphone compatible with the app mPath
Exclusion Criteria
* only migraine/headache or migraine/headache are the focus of pain
* analphabetism
* insufficient German knowledge
* current psychotherapy
* current participation in another intervention study
* physical inability to take part in therapy and study sessions
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Prof. Dr. Julia Glombiewski
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Prof. Dr. Julia Glombiewski
Clinical professor, Head of department clinical psychology and psychotherapy for adults
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau, Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie des Erwachsenenalters
Landau, , Germany
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Hofmann VE, Glombiewski JA, Kininger F, Scholten S. How to personalise cognitive-behavioural therapy for chronic primary pain using network analysis: study protocol for a single-case experimental design with multiple baselines. BMJ Open. 2024 Dec 3;14(12):e089319. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089319.
Vogt R, Haas J, Baumann L, Sander A, Klose C, Riecke J, Rief W, Bingel U, Maser D, Witthoft M, Kessler J, Zugaj MR, Ditzen B, Glombiewski JA. EFFects of Exposure and Cognitive behavioral Therapy for chronic BACK pain ("EFFECT-BACK"): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2024 Mar 11;25(1):176. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08017-9.
Vogel F, Blanken TF, Burger J, Reichert J, Scholten S, Klintwall L. How perceived causal networks can complement case conceptualization, diagnostic classification, and data-based networks: An introduction to a method for constructing personalized networks. J Psychopathol Clin Sci. 2025 Oct;134(7):844-854. doi: 10.1037/abn0001036. Epub 2025 Aug 14.
Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Rehm J, Kennedy C, Epping-Jordan J, Saxena S, von Korff M, Pull C; WHO/NIH Joint Project. Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Nov 1;88(11):815-23. doi: 10.2471/BLT.09.067231. Epub 2010 May 20.
Akerblom S, Perrin S, Rivano Fischer M, McCracken LM. Predictors and mediators of outcome in cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain: the contributions of psychological flexibility. J Behav Med. 2021 Feb;44(1):111-122. doi: 10.1007/s10865-020-00168-9. Epub 2020 Jul 8.
Williams ACC, Fisher E, Hearn L, Eccleston C. Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 12;8(8):CD007407. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub4.
Wright AGC, Woods WC. Personalized Models of Psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2020 May 7;16:49-74. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-102419-125032. Epub 2020 Feb 18.
Vlaeyen JWS, Crombez G. Behavioral Conceptualization and Treatment of Chronic Pain. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2020 May 7;16:187-212. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095744. Epub 2019 Dec 10.
Wideman TH, Finan PH, Edwards RR, Quartana PJ, Buenaver LF, Haythornthwaite JA, Smith MT. Increased sensitivity to physical activity among individuals with knee osteoarthritis: relation to pain outcomes, psychological factors, and responses to quantitative sensory testing. Pain. 2014 Apr;155(4):703-711. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.12.028. Epub 2013 Dec 28.
Beeckman M, Simons LE, Hughes S, Loeys T, Goubert L. A Network Analysis of Potential Antecedents and Consequences of Pain-Related Activity Avoidance and Activity Engagement in Adolescents. Pain Med. 2020 Feb 1;21(2):e89-e101. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz211.
Liew BXW, Ford JJ, Briganti G, Hahne AJ. Understanding how individualised physiotherapy or advice altered different elements of disability for people with low back pain using network analysis. PLoS One. 2022 Feb 10;17(2):e0263574. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263574. eCollection 2022.
Thompson EL, Broadbent J, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Bertino MD, Staiger PK. A Network Analysis of the Links Between Chronic Pain Symptoms and Affective Disorder Symptoms. Int J Behav Med. 2019 Feb;26(1):59-68. doi: 10.1007/s12529-018-9754-8.
Borsboom D. A network theory of mental disorders. World Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;16(1):5-13. doi: 10.1002/wps.20375.
Anderson KO, Dowds BN, Pelletz RE, Edwards TW, Peeters-Asdourian C. Development and initial validation of a scale to measure self-efficacy beliefs in patients with chronic pain. Pain. 1995 Oct;63(1):77-83. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00021-J.
Nicholas MK. The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: Taking pain into account. Eur J Pain. 2007 Feb;11(2):153-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.008. Epub 2006 Jan 30.
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, Kerns RD, Stucki G, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Carr DB, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dionne R, Galer BS, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Kramer LD, Manning DC, Martin S, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robbins W, Robinson JP, Rothman M, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Wernicke J, Witter J; IMMPACT. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005 Jan;113(1-2):9-19. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012. No abstract available.
Tait RC, Chibnall JT, Krause S. The Pain Disability Index: psychometric properties. Pain. 1990 Feb;40(2):171-182. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(90)90068-O.
Mewes R, Rief W, Stenzel N, Glaesmer H, Martin A, Brahler E. What is "normal" disability? An investigation of disability in the general population. Pain. 2009 Mar;142(1-2):36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2008.11.007. Epub 2009 Jan 14.
Sielski R, Glombiewski JA, Rief W, Crombez G, Barke A. Cross-cultural adaptation of the German Pain Solutions Questionnaire: an instrument to measure assimilative and accommodative coping in response to chronic pain. J Pain Res. 2017 Jun 19;10:1437-1446. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S130016. eCollection 2017.
Germer CK, Neff KD. Self-compassion in clinical practice. J Clin Psychol. 2013 Aug;69(8):856-67. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22021. Epub 2013 Jun 17.
Rozental A, Kottorp A, Forsstrom D, Mansson K, Boettcher J, Andersson G, Furmark T, Carlbring P. The Negative Effects Questionnaire: psychometric properties of an instrument for assessing negative effects in psychological treatments. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2019 Sep;47(5):559-572. doi: 10.1017/S1352465819000018. Epub 2019 Mar 15.
Munder T, Wilmers F, Leonhart R, Linster HW, Barth J. Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR): psychometric properties in outpatients and inpatients. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2010 May-Jun;17(3):231-9. doi: 10.1002/cpp.658.
Guest G, Bunce A, & Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006; 18(1): 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Morley S. Single-case methods in clinical psychology A practical guide (C. M., & C. J. M., Eds.). Routledge. 2018.
Margraf J, Cwik JC, Suppiger A, & Schneider S. Mini-DIPS Open Access. Diagnostisches Interview bei psychischen Störungen [Short-Form of the Diagnostic Interview for Mental Disorders. Open Access]. 2017. https://www.kli.psy.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/dips-interv/klipsy/download/Mini-DIPS%20Open%20Access.pdf
Green P, & MacLeod CJ. SIMR : an R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2016; 7(4): 493-498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
Nubling R, Kraft M, Henn J, Kriz D, Lutz W, Schmidt J, Wittmann W, Bassler M. [Testing the Psychometric Properties of the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ) in Different Health Care Settings]. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2017 Nov;67(11):465-476. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-111083. Epub 2017 Aug 30. German.
Schulte D. Messung der Therapieerwartung und Therapieevaluation von Patienten (PATHEV). Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie. 2005; 34(3): 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443.34.3.176
Mangels M, Schwarz S, Sohr G, Holme M, & Rief W. Der Fragebogen zur Erfassung der schmerzspezifischen Selbstwirksamkeit (FESS): Eine Adaptation des Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire für den deutschen Sprachraum. Diagnostica. 2009; 55(2): 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.55.2.84
McCracken LM. Contextual cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain. IASP Press. 2005.
Nicholas M, Molloy A, Tonkin L, & Beeston L. Practical and positive ways of adapting to chronic pain Manage your pain. Souvenir press. 2003.
Kleinstäuber M, Thomas P, Witthöft M, & Hiller W. Kognitive Verhaltenstherapie bei medizinisch unerklärten Körperbeschwerden und somatoformen Störungen (2. Aufl.). Springer. 2018.
Germer CK, & Neff KD. Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC). In I. Itzvan (Ed.), The handbook of mindfulness-based programs: Every established intervention, from medicine to education. 2019;(357-367). Routledge.
Main CJ, Keefe FJ, Jensen MP, Vlaeyen JWS, & Vowles KE. Fordyce's Behavioral Methods for Chronic Pain And Illness Republished with Invited Commentaries. IASP Press. 2015.
de Vries RM, Morey RD. Bayesian hypothesis testing for single-subject designs. Psychol Methods. 2013 Jun;18(2):165-85. doi: 10.1037/a0031037. Epub 2013 Mar 4.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Preregistration of the algorithmic decision-tool
Preregistration of the EMA questionnaire development
Preregistration of the feasibility study POINT Pain
Assessment app mPath
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
POINT Pain 2
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.