ArticleBritish journal of pain2026
Developing "De-stress pain," an intervention to reduce chronic pain-related distress: Proof of concept and qualitative assessment of acceptability.
Article in British journal of pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: People with persistent musculoskeletal (MSK) pain often experience distress, distinct from depression. Current referral pathways and interventions are suboptimal for this group. We developed and tested the acceptability and proof of concept of Methods: Guided by principles from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, behavioural activation, and the Person-Based Approach (PBA) De- Results: Sixteen participants were recruited and 11 completed the intervention alongside four social prescribers. Participants described the intervention as acceptable and valued the combination of social prescriber support, accountability, and encouragement to re-engage in meaningful and pleasurable activities. Social prescribers reported that the intervention was acceptable to deliver and aligned with their existing practice, although limited appointment time and participants' financial constraints could affect engagement. Some participants initially viewed pleasurable activities as indulgent, which acted as a barrier to engagement. Findings also suggested that future iterations may benefit from refining eligibility criteria to better identify individuals experiencing sufficient pain-related distress. Improvements in mood measures and participant reports of increased hope, activity, and wellbeing suggested the intervention showed promise for supporting people with pain-related distress. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that De-Stress Pain was acceptable to both participants and social prescribers and feasible to deliver within social prescribing services. The findings identified several factors requiring consideration in future iterations, including participant selection, time constraints, and financial barriers to engagement. De-Stress Pain is, to our knowledge, among the few pain-related interventions specifically designed for delivery by social prescribers within primary care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.