Meta-analysisPain Science & Central SensitizationSystematic Reviews & Meta-analysesComorbidities & Related ConditionsClinical RelevanceDOI
4 min read
Jump to:

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

Pooling 21 trials of over 1,200 people, this review found that acceptance and commitment therapy may modestly to meaningfully improve daily functioning, pain acceptance, mood, and how much pain interferes with life, with benefits lasting at least three months.

Bottom line

Acceptance and commitment therapy appears to help adults with chronic pain across functional and psychological outcomes, with the largest and most consistent effects on functional impairment, pain acceptance, and psychological flexibility; effects on pain intensity and quality of life are smaller, and longer-term durability beyond three months remains uncertain.

Moderate evidence

Published

2024
2 years ago
Current

Evidence hierarchy

Meta-analysis ◀ this study
Systematic Review
RCT
Cohort
Case-Control
Case Report
Expert Opinion

Study participants

1,298 participants across 21 RCTsMean age 29.5 to 82.26 years across studiesMajority female (exact split not reported)

Adults aged 16 and older with chronic non-cancer pain lasting more than three months (including three fibromyalgia trials); mostly from Europe, majority female.

Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 21 randomized controlled trials (1,298 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) against treatment-as-usual or waiting-list controls in adults with chronic non-cancer pain. At post-treatment, ACT showed a significant medium effect on pain interference, functional impairment, pain acceptance, psychological inflexibility, and depression, and a small effect on pain intensity, anxiety, and quality of life. Benefits were maintained at three months post-treatment, where functional impairment showed a large effect and the other measured outcomes showed medium effects. The authors conclude ACT may be an effective intervention for chronic pain but note clinical heterogeneity, English-only inclusion, and lack of preregistration as limitations, calling for studies in specific pain conditions with longer follow-up.

76/100
Evidence StrengthStrong
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication

Key Findings

ACT improved pain interference and functional impairment at post-treatmentHigh

Pain interference showed a medium effect (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.34; 625 participants) and functional impairment a moderate-to-large effect (SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.35; 638 participants), both P<0.001, favoring ACT over control.

Psychological outcomes and pain acceptance improved at post-treatmentHigh

Pain acceptance SMD 0.68 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87; 1,008 participants), psychological inflexibility SMD -0.65 (95% CI -0.89 to -0.40; 548), depression SMD -0.59 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.35; 983), anxiety SMD -0.47 (95% CI -0.69 to -0.24; 751), all P<0.001.

Pain intensity and quality of life showed smaller effects at post-treatmentMedium

Pain intensity SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.57 to -0.17; 1,114 participants) and QOL SMD 0.43 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.74; 294 participants), both favoring ACT.

Benefits were maintained at three months post-treatmentHigh

At three months, functional impairment showed a large effect (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.39; 421 participants) and the other outcomes showed medium effects, e.g., pain acceptance SMD 0.75, depression SMD -0.67, pain intensity SMD -0.57, anxiety SMD -0.53 (P=0.008). QOL was not analyzed at follow-up.

Included trials were generally of good methodological quality with low publication-bias riskMedium

Yates scores ranged 6 to 8; the funnel plot for pain interference was roughly symmetric, suggesting low publication-bias risk; sensitivity analyses (random vs fixed effects, leave-one-out) showed stable results. However, some studies had unclear or high risk for allocation concealment and attrition bias.

Study Methodology
Study Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, conducted per PRISMA guidelines using RevMan 5.3 with random-effects models, subgroup analysis by measurement time point, sensitivity analyses, and funnel-plot assessment of publication bias. Not preregistered.
Sample Size
21 RCTs; 1,298 total participants
Duration
Databases searched from inception to October 1, 2023; outcomes assessed at post-treatment and three months post-treatment
Population
Adults aged 16 years or older with chronic pain lasting more than three months (malignancy-related pain excluded); mean age 29.5 to 82.26, majority female; 16 studies from Europe, 3 from North America, 2 from Oceania; three studies in fibromyalgia patients; control groups received treatment-as-usual or waiting list.
Outcome Measures
Pain interference (primary) · Functional impairment (primary) · Pain intensity · Pain acceptance · Psychological inflexibility · Anxiety · Depression · Quality of life · Cochrane Risk of Bias tool · Yates Quality Rating Scale (part one)

Strengths

  • Pooled 21 RCTs (1,298 participants), roughly doubling the trial count of the earlier benchmark review by Hughes et al. (11 RCTs), increasing statistical power.
  • Followed PRISMA guidance with dual independent reviewers (screening agreement Kappa approximately 0.88) and a third reviewer for disputes.
  • Used two complementary quality tools (Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Yates scale tailored to psychological RCTs).
  • Conducted subgroup analysis by time point (post-treatment vs three months), sensitivity analyses (random vs fixed effects, leave-one-out), and funnel-plot publication-bias assessment indicating low bias risk and stable results.
  • Incorporated the contemporary pain interference outcome that prior reviews omitted.

Limitations

  • Substantial clinical heterogeneity across trials (individual vs group, face-to-face vs online delivery, differing intervention durations, and varied pain types and demographics); time-point subgrouping addressed only part of it.
  • Not all included studies reported every outcome of interest, reducing the number of trials pooled per outcome and the precision of some estimates.
  • Inclusion was restricted to English-language publications, potentially missing relevant studies.
  • Quality-assessment tools carry inherent subjectivity, and some trials had unclear or high risk of bias for allocation concealment and attrition.
  • The review was not preregistered, which the authors acknowledge as a potential source of bias.
  • Most interventions were psychologist-led and follow-up extended only to three months, so longer-term and nurse-delivered effects remain uncertain.

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is a talk-therapy approach that helps people live a fuller life alongside pain rather than focusing only on eliminating it.
  2. 02In this pooled analysis, ACT was linked to meaningful improvements in how much pain interfered with daily life, day-to-day functioning, acceptance of pain, and symptoms of depression and anxiety.
  3. 03Effects on pain intensity and overall quality of life were present but smaller, and improvements generally lasted at least three months after treatment ended.
  4. 04ACT is not a cure for chronic pain; the authors describe it as a potentially helpful tool and call for more research in specific pain conditions and with longer follow-up.
  5. 05Both psychologists and trained nurses may be able to deliver ACT techniques, including in brief or digital formats, though most trials to date were psychologist-led.

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from PLOS ONE

View Full Study

Related Research

●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) and Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (IMES) in the Management of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review

Trybulski et al.·Journal of Clinical Medicine·2026

This systematic review found that PNE and IMES may improve pain and function in myofascial pain syndrome and tendinopathies, but evidence quality was limited by high risk of bias. Both techniques appear safe with only minor, self-limiting adverse events.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xianjun Liu et al.·Frontiers in Psychology·2026

A meta-analysis of 14 RCTs found that CBT-based interventions produce small-to-moderate reductions in pain intensity and the largest, most consistent reductions in pain catastrophizing for chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Central SensitizationRead →
●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Dry Needling in Sports and Sport Recovery: A Systematic Review with an Evidence Gap Map

Kużdżał et al.·Sports Medicine·2025

This systematic review of 24 studies found dry needling effectively reduces pain in injured athletes but shows mixed results for performance enhancement in healthy athletes. Significant research gaps exist for elite athletes and long-term effects.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Effectiveness of Pain Neuroscience Education in Reducing Pain, Disability, Kinesiophobia, and Catastrophizing in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Luisa Medina-Viedma et al.·Medical Sciences (Basel)·2025

A meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (810 patients) found that pain neuroscience education, usually added to exercise or physiotherapy, may reduce pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and catastrophizing in chronic low back pain, though the authors urge caution given small trials and heterogeneity.

Central SensitizationRead →