Matching cognitive behavioural interventions to psychological processes to personalise chronic pain treatments: an adapted group Delphi study with clinical and science experts
Abstract
Background: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is guideline-recommended for the treatment of chronic pain with well-established efficacy. However, treatment effects remain moderate. Recent efforts to enhance outcomes focus on process-orientation, i.e. focussing on disability-maintaining processes as treatment-targets, and personalisation, i.e. selecting such targets and respective interventions for individual patients. Intuitive personalisation approaches to select targets and match interventions accordingly are vulnerable to biases. As the data base for data-driven algorithms in chronic pain remains insufficient, input from clinical and scientific experts appears to be a necessary interim step to match interventions to targets, potentially helping bridging the science-practice gap. Methods: In this group Delphi study, a Matching Matrix linking cognitive behavioural modules to specific treatment targets was developed. 22 clinicians selected two modules per target in the first Delphi round consisting of five separate groups. 15 clinicians contributed to the second round via an online survey. Their recommendations were reviewed by a focus group of four chronic pain science experts. Results: For all 23 targets, two modules could be matched based on the assessed data. The first-choice modules appear well-founded. Eight out of 46 matches required discussion within the study team. Conclusions: Based on the clinical and science experts’ recommendations, we propose a first Matching Matrix for chronic pain processes and respective treatment modules along with a replicable development rationale. The presented Matching Matrix is a first step towards the development of a broader evidence base for data-informed clinical decision-making in the treatment of chronic pain.
Related
- An Individual Meta‐Analysis of Psychological Treatments for Mood and Personality Disorders Using the Severity Diagnostic System of ICD‐11
- Remission Trajectories During Low-Intensity Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder: A 2-Year Naturalistic Follow-Up Study
- Development and description of a logic model for a guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for parents of persons treated for cancer during childhood: the EJDeR intervention
- Lifestyle therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with mood disorders: a randomised non-inferiority trial
- Effects of Psycho-Cardiology Model-Based Psychological and Behavioural Management on Negative Emotions and Sleep Disorders in Patients With Resistant Hypertension Complicated by Anxiety and Depression
BibTeX
@misc{hofmann2026matching,
title = {{Matching cognitive behavioural interventions to psychological processes to personalise chronic pain treatments: an adapted group Delphi study with clinical and science experts}},
author = {Verena Eunike Hofmann and Julia Glombiewski and Saskia Scholten},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/c68de_v3},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/c68de_v3/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Matching cognitive behavioural interventions to psychological processes to personalise chronic pain treatments: an adapted group Delphi study with clinical and science experts
AU - Verena Eunike Hofmann
AU - Julia Glombiewski
AU - Saskia Scholten
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/05
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/c68de_v3
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/c68de_v3/
AB - Background: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is guideline-recommended for the treatment of chronic pain with well-established efficacy. However, treatment effects remain moderate. Recent efforts to enhance outcomes focus on process-orientation, i.e. focussing on disability-maintaining processes as treatment-targets, and personalisation, i.e. selecting such targets and respective interventions for individual patients. Intuitive personalisation approaches to select targets and match interventions accordingly are vulnerable to biases. As the data base for data-driven algorithms in chronic pain remains insufficient, input from clinical and scientific experts appears to be a necessary interim step to match interventions to targets, potentially helping bridging the science-practice gap. Methods: In this group Delphi study, a Matching Matrix linking cognitive behavioural modules to specific treatment targets was developed. 22 clinicians selected two modules per target in the first Delphi round consisting of five separate groups. 15 clinicians contributed to the second round via an online survey. Their recommendations were reviewed by a focus group of four chronic pain science experts. Results: For all 23 targets, two modules could be matched based on the assessed data. The first-choice modules appear well-founded. Eight out of 46 matches required discussion within the study team. Conclusions: Based on the clinical and science experts’ recommendations, we propose a first Matching Matrix for chronic pain processes and respective treatment modules along with a replicable development rationale. The presented Matching Matrix is a first step towards the development of a broader evidence base for data-informed clinical decision-making in the treatment of chronic pain.
ER -