Agil utveckling av en digital exponeringsbehandling för ungdomar med kronisk muskuloskeletal smärta
23 juni 2026 uppdaterad av: Lauren Harrison, Stanford University
Detta projekt föreslår att systematiskt utveckla och utvärdera genomförbarheten och den preliminära effektiviteten av en digitalt levererad, graderad exponeringsbehandling för ungdomar med kronisk muskuloskeletal smärta, med användning av en sekventiell replikerad och randomiserad experimentell design i ett fall (SCED). SCED ger möjlighet att noggrant utvärdera behandlingseffektivitet på individnivå.
Utvecklingen av iGET Living kommer att baseras på en serie korta iterationer, med alfatestning (Mål 1) på ett litet urval av ungdomar med kronisk smärta (N = 15) och deras föräldrar (N = 15). För Mål 1 kommer deltagarna att delta i tre, två timmars fokusgrupper (en per vecka under tre veckor), vilket resulterar i totalt sex timmars deltagande per deltagare för Mål 1.
Mål 2 kommer att involvera ett urval (N = 20 ungdomar, N = 20 föräldrar) av naiva slutanvändare. Deltagarna kommer att registreras i en baslinjeperiod som sträcker sig från 7-25 dagar (görs för att stödja SCED-metoden) varefter de kommer att registreras i online-interventionsprogrammet, som varar i 6 veckor. Patienterna kommer att kontaktas 3 månader efter utskrivningen från behandling (vecka 22 av inskrivningen) och kommer att slutföra självrapporter utfallsmått vid denna tidpunkt.
Studieöversikt
Status
Avslutad
Betingelser
Intervention / Behandling
Studietyp
Interventionell
Inskrivning (Faktisk)
108
Fas
- Inte tillämpbar
Kontakter och platser
Det här avsnittet innehåller kontaktuppgifter för dem som genomför studien och information om var denna studie genomförs.
Studieorter
-
-
California
-
Menlo Park, California, Förenta staterna, 94025
- Pediatric Pain Management Clinic
-
-
Deltagandekriterier
Forskare letar efter personer som passar en viss beskrivning, så kallade behörighetskriterier. Några exempel på dessa kriterier är en persons allmänna hälsotillstånd eller tidigare behandlingar.
Urvalskriterier
Åldrar som är berättigade till studier
10 år till 17 år (Barn, Vuxen)
Tar emot friska volontärer
Nej
Beskrivning
Inklusionskriterier:
- Ungdom 10-17 år
- Har diagnosen kronisk muskuloskeletal smärta (>3 månader)
- Har måttlig till hög smärtinterferens (PROMIS Pain Interference ≥ 61)
- Engelsk läskunnig
- Ha tillgång till dator, smartphone eller surfplatta med internetuppkoppling
Exklusions kriterier:
- Betydande kognitiv funktionsnedsättning (t.ex. hjärnskada)
- Betydande medicinska eller psykiatriska problem som skulle störa behandlingen
Studieplan
Det här avsnittet ger detaljer om studieplanen, inklusive hur studien är utformad och vad studien mäter.
Hur är studien utformad?
Designdetaljer
- Primärt syfte: Behandling
- Tilldelning: Icke-randomiserad
- Interventionsmodell: Parallellt uppdrag
- Maskning: Ingen (Open Label)
Vapen och interventioner
Deltagargrupp / Arm |
Intervention / Behandling |
|---|---|
|
Experimentell: Graderad exponeringsintervention
För mål 2 kommer ungdomar med kronisk smärta att inkluderas i ett enarmigt genomförbarhetsförsök som undersöker acceptans, genomförbarhet och preliminär effektivitet av en ny, digitalt levererad, graderad exponeringsbehandling.
|
Graderad exponering är en teoridriven, individuellt anpassad och bevisbaserad beteendeintervention för individer med kronisk smärta riktad mot smärtrelaterad funktionsnedsättning genom att utsätta patienter för tidigare fruktade och undvikna aktiviteter.
|
|
Inget ingripande: User centered development
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
Vad mäter studien?
Primära resultatmått
Resultatmått |
Åtgärdsbeskrivning |
Tidsram |
|---|---|---|
|
Assessment of Acceptability of Treatment Content - Likert Scale (Aim 1)
Tidsram: One day
|
Participant-rated acceptability measured on 5-point Likert scale.
Range 0-4 (higher scores indicate more acceptable).
Questionnaire will be administered to youth with chronic pain and their parents.
|
One day
|
|
Participant Satisfaction With the Intervention (Aim 2)
Tidsram: 10 weeks (assessed at discharge)
|
Treatment satisfaction at the end of treatment will be evaluated by examining mean satisfaction scores on an adapted version of the Pain Service Satisfaction Test (PSST, McCracken et al., 1997).
The PSST consists of 23 items rated on a 5-point Likert Scale (0 = not at all satisfied to 4 = very satisfied) and assesses the patient and parent's experience of the intervention.
Scores range from 0-92.
A score greater than/equal to 40 of 60 (satisfied to very satisfied) will indicate high levels of satisfaction with the intervention content.
Caregivers were not assessed for this Outcome Measure.
|
10 weeks (assessed at discharge)
|
|
Percentage of Participants Dropped Out of Intervention (Aim 2)
Tidsram: 10 weeks (Completed at discharge)
|
As a measure of treatment adherence, we will calculate the percentage of participants who drop out or withdraw from the intervention prior to completion of the intervention.
|
10 weeks (Completed at discharge)
|
|
Expectations for Treatment (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Assessed seven days after starting the intervention (7 days post-baseline)
|
To assess expectations for treatment effectiveness, participants completed the Credibility/Effectiveness Questionnaire (CEQ; Borkovec & Nau, 1972) after engaging with iGET Living for one week.
The CEQ consists of six items rated on a 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) Likert scale and assesses expectations related to the effects of the intervention across two subscales: Credibility (e.g., "How confident would you be recommending iGET Living to a friend with the same problems?")
and Expectancy (e.g., "By the end of iGET Living, how much do you think your functioning will improve?").
Credibility is calculated by summing items 1-3 and Expectancy by summing items 4-6.
Possible range of scores for each subscale is 0-30, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived credibility and expectancy.
|
Assessed seven days after starting the intervention (7 days post-baseline)
|
|
Functional Disability (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
Functional disability will be assessed using the Functional Disability Inventory (FDI, Walker & Greene, 1991), a 15-item self-report measure of perceived difficulty in performing activities in school, home, physical, and social contexts.
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no trouble) to 4 (impossible).
Scores from all the Items are summed to create a total score (range 0-60), with higher scores indicating greater disability.
|
Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
Sekundära resultatmått
Resultatmått |
Åtgärdsbeskrivning |
Tidsram |
|---|---|---|
|
Child Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
Fear of Pain Questionnaire, Child Report, Short Form (FOPQ-C-SF, Heathcote et al., 2020) is a 10-item self-report measure that assesses pain-related fear and avoidance of activities.
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
Scores from all the Items are summed to create a total score ranging from 0 - 40.
Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain-related fear and avoidance (worst outcome).
|
Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
|
Parental Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
The Parent Fear of Pain Questionnaire (PFOPQ, Simons et al., 2015) assesses parent's fear associated with their child's pain experiences.
The PFOPQ contains 23 items assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "strongly disagree" to 4 "strongly agree").
Items are summed to create a total score (0-92), with higher scores indicated greater parent fear associated with their child's pain.
|
Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
|
Child Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale -Child Version (PCS-C, Crombez et al., 2003) assesses negative cognitions associated with pain.
The PCS-C is comprised of 13-items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0= "not at all true" to 4 "very true").
A total score (0-52) is obtained by summing all items.
Higher scores indicate higher levels of catastrophic thinking.
|
Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
|
Parent Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
Pain Catastrophizing Scale-Parent Version (PCS-P, Goubert et al., 2006) assesses parents' negative cognitions associated with their child's pain.
It is comprised of 13 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "not true at all" to 4 = "very true").
A total score (0-52) is derived by summing items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of catastrophic thinking.
|
Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
|
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
Child report on the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire for Adolescents-short form (CPAQ-A8, Gauntlett-Gilbert et al., 2018) will be used to assess pain acceptance in the child.
The CPAQ-A8 is an 8-item measure consisting of two subscales: Activity Engagement (4 items) and Pain Willingness (4 items).
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never True) to 4 (Always True) and yield a total score for each subscale ranging from 0-16.
Higher scores indicate greater Activity Engagement and greater Pain Willingness (positive outcome) .
|
Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
|
Parent Psychological Flexibility (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
The Parent Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PPFQ-10, Timmers et al., 2019) is a 10-item parent self-report questionnaire assessing a parent's ability to accept their own distress and respond adaptively and flexibly to their child's pain.
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0= " never true" to 4 = "always true") and are summed to create a total score, ranging from 0 - 40.
Higher scores indicate greater parent psychological flexibility (positive outcome).
|
Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
|
Parent Responses to Childs Pain (Aim 2)
Tidsram: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
Adult Responses to Children's Symptoms (ARCS, Claar et al., 2010) assesses parents' behavioral responses to children's pain behaviors.
The Protect subscale (13 items) will be utilized in this study.
The Protect scale refers to protective parental behavior, such as giving the child special attention and limiting the child's normal activities and responsibilities.
All items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "never" to 4 "always"), and are averaged to create a total score ranging from 0-4.
Higher scores indicating greater use of protective behavioral responses to their child's pain (worst outcome).
|
Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
Samarbetspartners och utredare
Det är här du hittar personer och organisationer som är involverade i denna studie.
Sponsor
Samarbetspartners
Utredare
- Huvudutredare: Lauren E Harrison, PhD, Stanford University
Publikationer och användbara länkar
Den som ansvarar för att lägga in information om studien tillhandahåller frivilligt dessa publikationer. Dessa kan handla om allt som har med studien att göra.
Allmänna publikationer
- Walker LS, Greene JW. The functional disability inventory: measuring a neglected dimension of child health status. J Pediatr Psychol. 1991 Feb;16(1):39-58. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/16.1.39.
- Crombez G, Bijttebier P, Eccleston C, Mascagni T, Mertens G, Goubert L, Verstraeten K. The child version of the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS-C): a preliminary validation. Pain. 2003 Aug;104(3):639-646. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00121-0.
- Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000 Apr;85(3):317-332. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00242-0.
- Groenewald CB, Essner BS, Wright D, Fesinmeyer MD, Palermo TM. The economic costs of chronic pain among a cohort of treatment-seeking adolescents in the United States. J Pain. 2014 Sep;15(9):925-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.06.002. Epub 2014 Jun 19.
- Huguet A, Miro J. The severity of chronic pediatric pain: an epidemiological study. J Pain. 2008 Mar;9(3):226-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.10.015. Epub 2007 Dec 21.
- King S, Chambers CT, Huguet A, MacNevin RC, McGrath PJ, Parker L, MacDonald AJ. The epidemiology of chronic pain in children and adolescents revisited: a systematic review. Pain. 2011 Dec;152(12):2729-2738. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.016.
- Goubert L, Eccleston C, Vervoort T, Jordan A, Crombez G. Parental catastrophizing about their child's pain. The parent version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-P): a preliminary validation. Pain. 2006 Aug;123(3):254-263. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.035. Epub 2006 Apr 27.
- Vlaeyen JWS, Crombez G, Linton SJ. The fear-avoidance model of pain. Pain. 2016 Aug;157(8):1588-1589. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000574. No abstract available.
- Wilson K, Bell C, Wilson L, Witteman H. Agile research to complement agile development: a proposal for an mHealth research lifecycle. NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Sep 13;1:46. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0053-1. eCollection 2018.
- Murray CB, Groenewald CB, de la Vega R, Palermo TM. Long-term impact of adolescent chronic pain on young adult educational, vocational, and social outcomes. Pain. 2020 Feb;161(2):439-445. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001732.
- Groenewald CB, Patel KV, Rabbitts JA, Palermo TM. Correlates and motivations of prescription opioid use among adolescents 12 to 17 years of age in the United States. Pain. 2020 Apr;161(4):742-748. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001775.
- Peng P, Stinson JN, Choiniere M, Dion D, Intrater H, Lefort S, Lynch M, Ong M, Rashiq S, Tkachuk G, Veillette Y; STOPPAIN Investigators Group. Dedicated multidisciplinary pain management centres for children in Canada: the current status. Can J Anaesth. 2007 Dec;54(12):985-91. doi: 10.1007/BF03016632.
- Eccleston C, Blyth FM, Dear BF, Fisher EA, Keefe FJ, Lynch ME, Palermo TM, Reid MC, Williams ACC. Managing patients with chronic pain during the COVID-19 outbreak: considerations for the rapid introduction of remotely supported (eHealth) pain management services. Pain. 2020 May;161(5):889-893. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001885. No abstract available.
- Vlaeyen JW, de Jong J, Geilen M, Heuts PH, van Breukelen G. The treatment of fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain: further evidence on the effectiveness of exposure in vivo. Clin J Pain. 2002 Jul-Aug;18(4):251-61. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200207000-00006.
- Simons LE, Harrison LE, O'Brien SF, Heirich MS, Loecher N, Boothroyd DB, Vlaeyen JWS, Wicksell RK, Schofield D, Hood KK, Orendurff M, Chan S, Lyons S. Graded exposure treatment for adolescents with chronic pain (GET Living): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial enhanced with single case experimental design. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019 Sep 10;16:100448. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100448. eCollection 2019 Dec.
- Simons LE, Sieberg CB, Carpino E, Logan D, Berde C. The Fear of Pain Questionnaire (FOPQ): assessment of pain-related fear among children and adolescents with chronic pain. J Pain. 2011 Jun;12(6):677-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2010.12.008. Epub 2011 Feb 26.
- Simons LE, Smith A, Kaczynski K, Basch M. Living in fear of your child's pain: the Parent Fear of Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 2015 Apr;156(4):694-702. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000100.
- Claar RL, Guite JW, Kaczynski KJ, Logan DE. Factor structure of the Adult Responses to Children's Symptoms: validation in children and adolescents with diverse chronic pain conditions. Clin J Pain. 2010 Jun;26(5):410-7. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181cf5706.
- Timmers I, Simons LE, Hernandez JM, McCracken LM, Wallace DP. Parent psychological flexibility in the context of pediatric pain: Brief assessment and associations with parent behaviour and child functioning. Eur J Pain. 2019 Aug;23(7):1340-1350. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1403. Epub 2019 May 14.
- Gauntlett-Gilbert J, Alamire B, Duggan GB. Pain Acceptance in Adolescents: Development of a Short Form of the CPAQ-A. J Pediatr Psychol. 2019 May 1;44(4):453-462. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsy090.
- Palermo T. Remote management of pediatric pain. Encyclopedia of Pain 2nd Edition New York: Springer 2013:3389-93
- Borkovec TD, & Nau, S. D. . Credibility of analogue therapy rationales. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychology 1972;3:257-60
- Simons LE, Vlaeyen JWS, Declercq L, Smith AM, Beebe J, Hogan M, Li E, Kronman CA, Mahmud F, Corey JR, Sieberg CB, Ploski C. Avoid or engage? Outcomes of graded exposure in youth with chronic pain using a sequential replicated single-case randomized design. Pain. 2020 Mar;161(3):520-531. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001735.
- McCracken LM, Klock PA, Mingay DJ, Asbury JK, Sinclair DM. Assessment of satisfaction with treatment for chronic pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997 Nov;14(5):292-9. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(97)00225-x.
- Harrison LE, Webster SN, Van Orden AR, Choate E, Jehl N, Stinson J, Wicksell RK, Bonnert M, Lalouni M, Darnall BD, Simons LE. Agile development of a digital exposure treatment for youth with chronic musculoskeletal pain: protocol of a user-centred design approach and examination of feasibility and preliminary efficacy. BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 15;12(9):e065997. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065997.
Studieavstämningsdatum
Dessa datum spårar framstegen för inlämningar av studieposter och sammanfattande resultat till ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieposter och rapporterade resultat granskas av National Library of Medicine (NLM) för att säkerställa att de uppfyller specifika kvalitetskontrollstandarder innan de publiceras på den offentliga webbplatsen.
Studera stora datum
Studiestart (Faktisk)
2 maj 2022
Primärt slutförande (Faktisk)
13 maj 2025
Avslutad studie (Faktisk)
1 oktober 2025
Studieregistreringsdatum
Först inskickad
4 oktober 2021
Först inskickad som uppfyllde QC-kriterierna
4 oktober 2021
Första postat (Faktisk)
15 oktober 2021
Uppdateringar av studier
Senaste uppdatering publicerad (Faktisk)
22 juli 2026
Senaste inskickade uppdateringen som uppfyllde QC-kriterierna
23 juni 2026
Senast verifierad
1 juni 2026
Mer information
Termer relaterade till denna studie
Ytterligare relevanta MeSH-villkor
Andra studie-ID-nummer
- 53323
- 1K23AR079608-01 (U.S.S. NIH-anslag/kontrakt)
Plan för individuella deltagardata (IPD)
Planerar du att dela individuella deltagardata (IPD)?
NEJ
Läkemedels- och apparatinformation, studiedokument
Studerar en amerikansk FDA-reglerad läkemedelsprodukt
Nej
Studerar en amerikansk FDA-reglerad produktprodukt
Nej
produkt tillverkad i och exporterad från U.S.A.
Nej
Denna information hämtades direkt från webbplatsen clinicaltrials.gov utan några ändringar. Om du har några önskemål om att ändra, ta bort eller uppdatera dina studieuppgifter, vänligen kontakta register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ändring har implementerats på clinicaltrials.gov, kommer denna att uppdateras automatiskt även på vår webbplats .