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

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

Psychological therapies like CBT, mindfulness, and resilience coaching may help people with ongoing pain catastrophize less and cope better, but the current evidence is limited and mixed.

Bottom line

Across 10 varied studies, psychological interventions appeared to reduce pain catastrophizing and improve resilience in many patients, supporting their use as part of a biopsychosocial pain-care approach, but small sample sizes, weak study designs, and inconsistent durability mean larger controlled trials are needed to confirm the benefit.

Preliminary evidence

Published

2025
1 years ago
Current

Evidence hierarchy

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

Study participants

559 subjects across 10 studies (with sample overlap; several studies shared the same participants)12 to 79 yearsPredominantly female where reported (one study women-only; one did not report gender)

Patients with physical pain across mixed diagnoses, predominantly musculoskeletal pain; also general chronic pain and neurofibromatosis-related pain

Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

This PRISMA-guided systematic review examined 10 studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 4 nonrandomized pilot/single-group trials, and 1 single case study) testing psychological and psychotherapeutic interventions in patients with physical pain, with a specific focus on changes in pain catastrophizing and resilience. The interventions were heterogeneous, including mind-body resiliency programs (3RP, GetActive with or without Fitbit), psychoeducation, self-compassion training, a CBT-based resilience coaching program (PRISM), and modified Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR). Most studies reported that psychological interventions may reduce catastrophic thinking and improve resilience, alongside benefits for mood, quality of life, and pain management, though results were mixed, sometimes non-significant, and not always sustained at follow-up. The authors emphasize that the small number of studies, sample overlap, heterogeneous designs, and lack of long-term follow-up limit firm conclusions and call for larger controlled trials.

45/100
Evidence StrengthModerate
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication

Key Findings

Psychological interventions may reduce pain catastrophizing in many studiesHigh

Reduced catastrophic thinking was reported in most selected studies, e.g., a roughly two-fold reduction after pain education versus physiotherapy in low back pain, and medium effect sizes (around 0.43 to 0.72) in the GetActive programs. Some studies, however, showed no change or non-durable effects.

Resilience improved in several but not all studiesHigh

Increases in resilience were observed after 3RP (effect sizes 0.73 to 1.33), self-compassion training (effect size 0.55), and GetActive (effect size up to 1.11), while a pain education study in low back pain and a modified MBSR study showed no significant change in resilience.

Reductions in pain catastrophizing and gains in mindfulness, more than resilience, mediated mood improvement in one analysisMedium

Grunberg et al. reported that reductions in pain catastrophizing followed by improvements in mindfulness and pain resilience accounted for much of the improvement in depressive symptoms, while improvements in anxiety were primarily explained by reduced catastrophizing and enhanced mindfulness rather than resilience.

Effects on pain intensity were mixed and sometimes not maintainedMedium

Some studies found reduced pain at rest and during activity (effect sizes up to ~1.30), while others found no change in pain severity or improvements that were not sustained at 3-month follow-up; one study suggested MBSR improved pain management rather than pain perception itself.

Methodological quality varied and limited firm conclusionsMedium

Of 5 RCTs, 3 had low risk of bias and 2 raised concerns due to missing data; 4 of 5 nonrandomized studies had moderate risk of bias from absent control groups, uncontrolled confounding, recruitment limitations, and high dropout. A narrative synthesis was used given heterogeneity.

Study Methodology
Study Design
Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines with narrative (qualitative) synthesis; risk of bias assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for nonrandomized studies
Sample Size
10 studies including a combined 559 subjects (with overlap; five studies drew on the same samples, including three on the same 82 patients)
Duration
Literature searched from 2006 to February 2024; intervention session counts averaged about 8 per program with three studies including 3-month follow-up
Population
Patients experiencing physical pain across heterogeneous diagnoses (predominantly musculoskeletal pain of the neck, head, limbs, shoulder, and lumbar areas; also general chronic pain and Neurofibromatosis type 1/2 or Schwannomatosis), ages 12 to 79, predominantly female where reported
Outcome Measures
Pain catastrophizing (validated psychometric instruments) · Resilience (validated psychometric instruments) · Anxiety and depressive symptoms · Pain severity and pain interference · Quality of life, mindfulness, self-compassion, and other secondary outcomes

Strengths

  • Conducted and reported following PRISMA guidelines with a registered PROSPERO protocol
  • Formal risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools
  • Two independent reviewers with high inter-rater agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.91 to 0.95) and a third reviewer for disagreements
  • Searched three major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) with reference-list citation searching
  • Transparent reporting of both significant and non-significant results, and honest acknowledgment of limitations

Limitations

  • Very small number of eligible studies (10), with substantial sample overlap (several studies drawn from the same participants)
  • High heterogeneity in diagnoses, intervention types, and study designs precluding meta-analysis
  • Four studies lacked a control group and several had high dropout and uncontrolled confounding
  • Lack of long-term follow-up; some benefits were not maintained at 3 months
  • Parallel medical treatment in some patients obscured the effect of psychological intervention alone
  • Most studies were from Western countries (especially the USA), limiting cross-cultural generalizability
  • Protocol was registered retrospectively (post hoc), and only English-language studies were included

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01Talking therapies and mind-body programs (such as cognitive behavioral approaches, mindfulness, self-compassion, and resilience coaching) may help some people with persistent pain think less catastrophically about pain and cope more flexibly.
  2. 02These approaches often improve mood, quality of life, and pain management even when they do not always lower the intensity of pain itself.
  3. 03The evidence comes from a small number of varied studies, so results were not consistent for everyone and some benefits faded over a few months.
  4. 04Psychological support is best seen as a complement to medical care within a broader biopsychosocial approach, not a replacement for it.
  5. 05Effective delivery generally relies on trained psychologists or psychotherapists, so ask your care team about access to qualified support.

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from Healthcare (Basel)

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 →