ABSTRACT
Background
Acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based interventions are effective for improving pain‐related outcomes, yet their effects on psychological flexibility have not been meta‐analyzed. This systematic review and meta‐analysis addressed this gap by comparing these interventions with control conditions on psychological flexibility and its core dimensions in adults with chronic pain.
Methods
Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to May 2025. Sixty randomized controlled trials comprising 6692 participants were included. Meta‐analyses were conducted for global psychological flexibility (k = 17), acceptance (k = 38), committed action (k = 4) and values (k = 4). Heterogeneity, risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed.
Results
Interventions significantly improved psychological flexibility at post‐treatment, short‐term (≤ 6 months) and long‐term (> 6 months) follow‐up (g = 0.35–0.69), and acceptance across all time points (g = 0.41–0.77). Effects for committed action and values were non‐significant. Heterogeneity was substantial, most trials had a high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was low to very low. Moderator analyses indicated larger effects when interventions were compared with inactive controls, delivered by psychologists or implemented as stand‐alone programs.
Conclusions
Evidence suggests that acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based interventions may improve global psychological flexibility and acceptance. However, the certainty of evidence was low to very low, and most included trials were at high risk of bias. More rigorous trials are needed to clarify effects across specific dimensions of psychological flexibility.
Significance Statement
This systematic review and meta‐analysis provide the first comprehensive synthesis of the effects of acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based interventions on psychological flexibility in chronic pain. These findings show that these interventions improve psychological flexibility, particularly pain acceptance, supporting it as a clinically relevant treatment target.
Trial Registration
PROSPERO: CRD420251018441
1. Introduction
Chronic pain is a prevalent condition associated with impairments in daily functioning and psychological wellbeing (Cohen et al. 2021; Rometsch et al. 2025). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) remains the most established psychological intervention for chronic pain, although its overall effects are relatively modest (Williams et al. 2020). Building on this tradition, contextual cognitive‐behavioural approaches place greater emphasis on acceptance and mindfulness and have shown beneficial effects across pain‐related outcomes (McCracken et al. 2022).
Meta‐analytic evidence indicates that acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based interventions (MBIs) improve pain interference, pain intensity, depression and anxiety (Veehof et al. 2016). Specifically, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) shows strong effects on pain interference (Lai et al. 2023; Ma et al. 2023), whereas MBIs show moderate effects on pain interference, depression and quality of life (Hilton et al. 2017; Paschali et al. 2024). However, available syntheses have focused primarily on outcomes rather than on whether these interventions improve the psychological processes they are designed to target.
One such process is psychological flexibility, defined as the capacity to remain open to aversive internal experiences while acting in line with personal values (Hayes et al. 2012). The hexaflex model describes six interrelated dimensions of this construct: acceptance, cognitive defusion, present‐moment awareness, self‐as‐context, values and committed action (Scott et al. 2016). In chronic pain, psychological flexibility captures adaptive responding to pain and distress (McCracken 2024) and has been examined as a mediator of treatment effects (Pérez‐Aranda et al. 2019; Scott et al. 2016; Vowles et al. 2014; Wicksell et al. 2010). Nonetheless, the assessment of psychological flexibility remains debated, particularly regarding whether it is best represented by global, multidimensional or process‐specific measures (Lucas et al. 2025), and some dimensions, such as cognitive defusion, present‐moment awareness and self‐as‐context, appear to be examined less in chronic pain intervention research.
Despite substantial evidence supporting psychological flexibility as a therapeutic process in chronic pain (McCracken and Morley 2014; McCracken and Vowles 2014), to our knowledge, no meta‐analysis has yet examined whether acceptance‐ and MBIs improve psychological flexibility itself and its dimensions. Meta‐analyses of intervention studies have primarily focused on outcomes (Hilton et al. 2017; Lai et al. 2023; Paschali et al. 2024; Veehof et al. 2016), whereas meta‐analyses of psychological flexibility have examined its association with pain‐related outcomes (Ding and Zheng 2022; Fang and Ding 2022).
This systematic review and meta‐analysis address this gap by examining the effects of acceptance‐ and MBIs on psychological flexibility and its dimensions in people with chronic pain. Potential moderators of these effects were also examined, including control condition type, intervention type, delivery mode, treatment format, therapist involvement, pain diagnosis, intervention provider, intervention structure, instrument type, intervention duration, session duration, session frequency, dropout rate, proportion of females and age. Based on the theoretical focus of these interventions (McCracken et al. 2022), we expected significant improvements in global psychological flexibility and acceptance. Given the anticipated clinical and methodological heterogeneity across randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we expected larger effects in trials using inactive comparators, stand‐alone interventions and psychologist‐delivered interventions.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al. 2021). Methodological standards were based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins et al. 2024) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) (Shea et al. 2017). The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).
2.2. Data Sources
A search strategy was conducted using PsycINFO (ProQuest), Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Core Collection). Additionally, a complementary search was conducted in the Association for Contextual Behavioural Science (ACBS) registry of ACT RCTs from 1986 to the present. The general search strategy combined terms related to “Population” (chronic pain), “Intervention” (acceptance‐ and MBIs) and “Outcome” (psychological [in]flexibility), encompassing both the global construct and its six core dimensions (acceptance or experiential avoidance, cognitive defusion or cognitive fusion, present‐moment awareness or lack of present‐moment awareness, self‐as‐context or self‐as‐content, values or lack of values and committed action or inaction). For simplicity, the term psychological (in)flexibility will hereafter be referred to as psychological flexibility, and all dimensions will be presented in their flexible form.
2.3. Search Strategy
The search strategy combined free‐text terms with the American Psychological Association Thesaurus and Medical Subject Headings, using Boolean operators adapted to each database. Searches were conducted across titles, abstracts, keywords and subject headings to maximize retrieval. Search terms were informed by strategies used in previous reviews on acceptance‐ and MBIs (Hilton et al. 2017; Lai et al. 2023; Martinez‐Calderon et al. 2024; Sanabria‐Mazo, Colomer‐Carbonell, Fernández‐Vázquez, et al. 2023; Veehof et al. 2016; Williams et al. 2020) and on psychological flexibility (Ding and Zheng 2022; Fang and Ding 2022) in chronic pain populations. The final search strategy was refined in accordance with the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guidelines (McGowan et al. 2016). In addition, reference lists of included studies and published reviews on related topics were screened to identify further eligible trials. The following filters were applied in all databases, where possible: (1) publication date (from inception until May 2025), (2) document type (peer‐reviewed articles only) and (3) languages (English, Spanish and French). Complete search strategies for each database are provided in Table S1.
2.4. Eligibility Criteria
The eligibility criteria were defined following the ‘Population’, ‘Intervention’, ‘Comparison’, ‘Outcomes’ and ‘Study design’ (PICOS) framework (Methley et al. 2014). The specific selection criteria applied in this study are detailed below.
2.4.1. [P] Population
Adults (≥ 18 years) with non‐oncologic chronic pain (> 3 months) were included. Individuals with cancer‐related pain, acute pain (< 3 months), postsurgical pain, pain of unspecified duration or headaches with distinct pathophysiological mechanisms, as well as those with comorbid severe psychiatric disorders (psychosis, eating disorders or conditions requiring hospitalization), substance dependence or neurodegenerative diseases, were excluded.
2.4.2. [I] Intervention
Acceptance‐ and MBIs were included regardless of delivery mode (face‐to‐face, online or blended), timing (synchronous with real‐time therapist interaction or asynchronous self‐paced) or treatment format (individual or group). These interventions encompassed three main categories: ACT, MBI and contextual cognitive behavioural therapy (CCBT). MBI comprised standardized protocols, such as mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy (MBCT), as well as other mindfulness‐based programs. In contrast, CCBT referred to contextual approaches that incorporate acceptance‐ and/or mindfulness‐based processes but do not strictly follow ACT or MBI protocols. CCBTs were included only in the systematic review, whereas ACT and MBI were retained for meta‐analyses to preserve protocol homogeneity. Interventions were further classified as stand‐alone (acceptance‐ or mindfulness‐based only) or combined (integrated with other therapeutic elements) when acceptance‐ or mindfulness‐based processes were explicitly incorporated as core therapeutic components. Interventions in which pharmacotherapy constituted a primary component were excluded.
2.4.3. [C] Comparison
Studies were included exclusively if they compared an acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based intervention to an active (e.g., relaxation training, psychoeducation or physical therapy) or an inactive control condition (e.g., treatment as usual, waitlist or attention control). Multi‐arm trials were considered if at least one comparison met these criteria. Studies without a control group were excluded. In addition, RCTs directly comparing two acceptance‐ and MBIs (e.g., ACT vs. CCBT or MBI vs. CCBT) were included in the systematic review but excluded from the meta‐analysis.
2.4.4. [O] Outcomes
Only studies that measured psychological flexibility as a global construct and/or at least one of its six core dimensions (i.e., acceptance, cognitive defusion, present‐moment awareness, self‐as‐context, values and committed action) using validated measures were retained (McCracken 2024). In this review, global psychological flexibility was defined as a broad measure intended to capture psychological flexibility or inflexibility beyond a single hexaflex dimension. This category included instruments such as the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) and the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire‐II (AAQ‐II). This operationalization was adopted because these instruments are commonly used as broad indicators of psychological flexibility‐related processes in chronic pain research, despite ongoing debate about the dimensional structure of psychological flexibility and inflexibility (Lucas et al. 2025). Studies that did not report sufficient statistical data to estimate the intervention's effect on psychological flexibility were excluded from the meta‐analysis but were summarized narratively in the systematic review.
2.4.5. [S] Study Design
Only parallel RCTs with ethical approval and publication in peer‐reviewed journals were eligible. Pilot studies were also eligible if they adopted a parallel RCT design. Crossover RCTs were excluded due to the potential risk of carryover effects on psychological flexibility outcomes. Other study designs were excluded.
2.5. Selection Process
Study selection was conducted using Rayyan QCRI (Ouzzani et al. 2016). First, duplicate records were automatically removed. Second, three reviewers (CR‐F, PP‐L and JN) independently and blindly screened titles and abstracts. When information was insufficient to determine eligibility, full texts were reviewed. All retrieved articles were assessed against the eligibility criteria, and relevant studies were selected by cross‐examination. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and those arising during full‐text screening were resolved with the involvement of an additional reviewer (JPS‐M). Finally, the references of the included articles and reviews identified through the search were screened to capture additional relevant studies not detected by the initial search strategies.
2.6. Data Extraction and Management
Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers (JPS‐M and VB) using a standardized extraction form adapted from the Cochrane guidelines (Higgins et al. 2024). Extracted data were cross‐checked for accuracy and reliability, and the corresponding authors were contacted to provide clarification when information required for the meta‐analysis was missing or incomplete. Two reminder emails were sent at two‐week intervals if no response was received. In cases where the means and standard deviations required to compute instrument scores were neither reported nor provided by the study authors, they were estimated from the available data (e.g., sample size, medians, ranges, interquartile ranges or subscale scores) according to the method proposed by Wan et al. (2014).
Data were collected across three categories: (1) study characteristics (first author, year of publication, country and total sample size); (2) sample characteristics (age, gender, pain diagnosis, years with pain and pain intensity); and (3) intervention and control characteristics (control condition type, intervention type, delivery mode, treatment format, therapist involvement, intervention provider, intervention structure, intervention duration, assessment points, dropout rates, outcomes, measurement instruments and outcome role).
2.7. Risk of Bias and Certainty of the Evidence
The risk of bias at the study level and the certainty of the evidence at the outcome level were independently assessed by two reviewers (ER‐C and CR‐F) using the Revised Cochrane Risk‐of‐Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2) (Sterne et al. 2019) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (Schünemann et al. 2013), respectively. RoB Figures were created using the Risk‐Of‐Bias VISualization (Robvis) package in R (McGuinness 2021; McGuinness and Higgins 2020). Discrepancies were resolved with the involvement of an additional reviewer (JPS‐M).
RoB 2 evaluates potential bias across five domains: (1) bias arising from the randomization process, (2) bias due to deviations from intended interventions, (3) bias due to missing outcome data, (4) bias in outcome measurement and (5) bias in the selection of reported results. Each domain consists of a series of questions with responses categorized as ‘yes’, ‘probably yes’, ‘probably no’, ‘no’ and ‘no information’. An algorithm then generates a judgement for each domain, classifying the risk of bias as ‘low risk’, ‘some concerns’ or ‘high risk’.
The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome across four levels: ‘high’, ‘moderate’, ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Assessments were based on five domains: (1) risk of bias, (2) inconsistency, (3) indirectness, (4) imprecision and (5) publication bias. Following established operational criteria (Ryan and Hill 2016), evidence was downgraded or upgraded as appropriate.
2.8. Data Synthesis and Analysis
A systematic review was conducted to provide a descriptive synthesis of the studies. Study, sample, intervention and control characteristics were summarized narratively and tabulated to capture variability across RCTs. Subsequently, meta‐analyses were performed using the metafor and dmetar (Companion R Package for the Guide Doing Meta‐Analysis in R 2019; Viechtbauer 2010) packages in R to evaluate the effectiveness of acceptance‐ and MBIs in improving psychological flexibility and its dimensions compared to active or inactive control conditions. To ensure robustness, a minimum of three effect sizes was required for inclusion in each meta‐analysis (Cheung 2019).
Effect sizes were estimated using Hedges' g, calculated from post‐treatment scores, with statistical significance set at p = 0.05 and magnitudes classified as trivial (< 0.20), small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79), large (0.80–1.19) and very large (≥ 1.20). For consistency, all effect sizes were coded such that higher scores indicated greater psychological flexibility. Accordingly, effect sizes derived from measures of inflexibility (e.g., PIPS or AAQ‐II) were multiplied by −1. Following Cochrane guidelines (Higgins et al. 2024), different versions of the same instrument were combined when psychometric evidence supported their equivalence, as they were considered to assess the same underlying construct. Distinct validated instruments measuring the same construct were included in the meta‐analyses when their conceptual and psychometric comparability had been established in previous research (McCracken 2024).
For studies reporting multiple post‐treatment assessments at different time points, the following approach was applied: (1) the first post‐treatment assessment was used to represent the immediate effects of the intervention; (2) follow‐up assessments conducted within six months after baseline, excluding the first post‐treatment assessment, were averaged to estimate short‐term effects; and (3) follow‐up assessments conducted beyond six months from baseline were averaged to estimate long‐term effects. Averages were required in only three studies, as most assessments aligned with predefined time points (post, ≤ 6 months and > 6 months) (Higgins et al. 2024). In multi‐arm trials, intervention or control groups within the same category were statistically pooled following Cochrane guidelines (Higgins et al. 2024) to generate a single effect size per comparison, using the corresponding formulas for pooled means and standard deviations. The groups were merged using the function provided by Harrer et al. (2019) in R. The specific cases where this approach was applied are detailed in Section 3.
Random‐effects models were applied to pool effect sizes (Harrer et al. 2019). Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I 2 statistic, with I 2 values categorized as low (< 30%), moderate (30%–75%) and high (> 75%). Subgroup analyses were performed for categorical moderators, including control condition type (inactive or active), intervention type (ACT or MBI), delivery mode (face‐to‐face, internet‐based or blended/other), treatment format (individual, group or combined), therapist involvement (therapist‐delivered, self‐guided or combined), pain diagnosis (unspecified chronic pain, localized musculoskeletal pain and fibromyalgia and other widespread pain), intervention provider (psychologist, non‐psychologist or none), intervention structure (stand‐alone or combined) and instrument type (PIPS, AAQ‐II or other). For the subgroup analysis, a mixed‐effects model was used. When the number of studies in a subgroup was k ≤ 5, a pooled estimate of τ2 (tau‐squared) was calculated (Borenstein et al. 2009). As recommended by Harrer et al. (2019), subgroup analyses were conducted only when heterogeneity was statistically significant (p < 0.10) and at least 10 studies were available for the overall moderator analysis.
Additionally, meta‐regression analyses were computed for continuous moderators using a weighted least squares (WLS) approach, which assigns greater weight to studies with smaller standard errors. The analyses followed the method of moments procedure with Knapp–Hartung correction to improve the robustness of estimates and included intervention duration (weeks), session duration (minutes), session frequency (number of sessions), dropout rates (%), proportion of females (%) and age (years). Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots and Egger's regression intercept to evaluate potential asymmetry in effect size distribution.
3. Results
3.1. Selection of Studies
The initial search identified a total of 3528 records. After duplicates were removed and screening was completed, 100 full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 40 records were excluded for the following reasons: outcome measures (k = 19), study design (k = 12), full text not available (k = 3), population outside the target scope (k = 2), publication types not eligible (k = 2) and insufficient or unclear data (k = 2). An additional eight articles were identified through reference list screening (Buhler et al. 2021; Buhrman et al. 2015; Clarke et al. 2017; Godfrey et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2025; Morone et al. 2008; Plumb et al. 2022; Thorsell et al. 2011). No additional records were added through other sources. The records excluded during the full‐text assessment are listed in Table S2.
Some RCTs were reported in more than one publication but were treated as single studies in this systematic review: Wicksell et al. (2008, 2010), Thorsell et al. (2011, 2016), Kristjánsdóttir et al. (2013a, 2013b) and Casey et al. (2022, 2024). In addition, nine studies were excluded from the meta‐analysis for the following reasons: Wetherell et al. (2011), because it directly compared ACT with CCBT; Herbert et al. (2017), because it compared two ACT delivery formats without a control group; Godfrey et al. (2020), because essential statistical information was unavailable (despite two reminder emails); Torrijos‐Zarcero et al. (2021), because it compared MBI with CCBT; and Buhrman et al. (2015), Pincus et al. (2015), Gasslander et al. (2022), Bostrøm et al. (2023) and Solberg Nes et al. (2024), because they tested CCBT that incorporates acceptance‐ and/or mindfulness‐based processes but do not strictly follow ACT or MBI protocols. In total, 60 RCTs were included in the systematic review, of which 51 were eligible for meta‐analysis. The study selection process is illustrated in Figure 1. References for the studies included in the review are presented in Data S1.
FIGURE 1.
PRISMA flow diagram of included studies.
3.2. Study and Sample Characteristics
The characteristics of the 60 RCTs included in the systematic review are summarized in Table 1. The studies were published between 2008 and 2025 and were conducted across 18 countries: Sweden (k = 13), Spain (k = 10), the United States (k = 10), the United Kingdom (k = 7), Norway (k = 3), Denmark (k = 2), Germany (k = 2), Ireland (k = 2), Canada (k = 2), and one study each from France, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand and China. The RCTs evaluated a range of chronic pain conditions, with unspecified chronic pain (k = 31), chronic low back pain (k = 10) and fibromyalgia (k = 9) being the most common, followed by osteoarthritis (k = 3), chronic musculoskeletal pain (k = 2), vestibulodynia (k = 2), chronic widespread pain (k = 1), endometriosis (k = 1) and vulvodynia (k = 1).
TABLE 1.
Study characteristics of the 60 RCTs included in the systematic review.
| First author (year) | Country | Pain diagnosis | N total | Intervention | Control | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group (n) | Age M (SD or range) | Female % | Years of diagnosis, M (SD) | Pain intensity, M (SD) | Group (n) | Age, M (SD or range) | Female % | Years of diagnosis, M (SD) | Pain intensity, M (SD) | ||||
| Morone et al. (2008) | United States | Chronic low back pain | 37 | MBI (19) | 74.1 (6.1) | 53 | — | 17.3 (9.2) d | Waitlist (18) | 75.6 (5) | 61 | — | 16.2 (7.8) d |
| Wicksell et al. (2008) | Sweden | Chronic pain | 21 | ACT (11) | 48.2 (7.8) | 82 | 7 (3.5) | 5.3 (1) e | Waitlist (10) | 55.1 (11.2) | 70 | 6.8 (3.5) | 6.3 (1.5) e |
| Johnston et al. (2010) a | New Zealand | Chronic pain | 24 | ACT (12) | 43 (20 to 84) | 75 | — | 21.2 (10.9) d | Waitlist (12) | 43 (20 to 84) | 50 | — | 20.5 (11.9) d |
| Thorsell et al. (2011) a ,b | Sweden | Chronic pain | 90 | ACT (45) | 46 (12.3) | 64 | — | 7.9 (0.2) f | Relaxation(45) | 46 (12.3) | 64 | — | 8.3 (0.3) f |
| Wetherell et al. (2011) a , b , c | United States | Chronic pain | 114 | ACT (57) | 54.9 (12.5) | 51 | 15 (13.2) | 5.9 (1.5) g | CCBT (57) | 54.9 (12.5) | 51 | 15 (13.2) | 5.2 (1.6) g |
| Buhrman et al. (2013) | Sweden | Chronic pain | 76 | ACT (38) | 48.8 (9.5) | 55 | 13.1 (10.6) | 4.5 (0.8) h | Discussion forum (38) | 49.3 (11.3) | 63 | 17.4 (12.4) | 4.3 (1) h |
| Kristjánsdóttir et al. (2013a, 2013b) | Norway | Chronic widespread pain | 135 | ACT (69) | 44.6 (11.1) | 100 | 13.1 (8.8) | 6.7 (1.7) e | Self‐help website (66) | 43.8 (11.2) | 100 | 15.5 (12.1) | 5.8 (2.2) e |
| McCracken et al. (2013) a | United Kingdom | Chronic pain | 73 | ACT (37) | 58 (12.8) | 69 | 17.9 (10.7) | 6.5 (1.9) e | TAU (36) | 58 (12.8) | 69 | 15 (8.1) | 6.4 (1.9) e |
| Wicksell et al. (2013) a | Sweden | Fibromyalgia | 40 | ACT (23) | 45.1 (6.6) | 100 | 15 (13.5) | 4.2 (1) e | Waitlist (17) | 45.1 (6.6) | 100 | 15 (13.5) | 4.3 (1.1) e |
| Luciano et al. (2014) b | Spain | Fibromyalgia | 155 | ACT (51) | 48.9 (5.9) | 96 | 14.1 (8.9) | 6.5 (1.8) e | Waitlist (53) | 48.3 (5.7) | 94 | 12.9 (8.7) | 6.4 (1.9) e |
| RPT (51) | 47.8 (5.9) | 98 | 11.4 (8) | 6.3 (1.6) e | |||||||||
| Alonso‐Fernández et al. (2015) a | Spain | Chronic musculoskeletal pain | 64 | ACT + SOC (30) | 83.1 (6.8) | 78 | 21.3 (20.8) | 5.3 (2.3) g | SOC (34) | 83.1 (6.8) | 78 | 25.3 (20.4) | 5.3 (2.1) g |
| Buhrman et al. (2015) c | Sweden | Chronic pain | CCBT (52) | 54.1 (11.8) | 86 | — | 3.8 (1.1) h | Waitlist (24) | 46.8 (12.9) | 83 | — | 3.8 (1.1) h | |
| Dowd et al. (2015) a | Ireland | Chronic pain | 124 | MBCT (62) | 44.5 (12.3) | 90 | 10.3 (9.8) | 5.6 (0.2) g | PE (62) | 44.5 (12.3) | 90 | 11.5 (12.4) | 5.9 (0.2) g |
| Kemani et al. (2015) | Sweden | Chronic pain | 60 | ACT (30) | 38.7 (11.1) | 80 | 8.8 (6.2) | 4.3 (0.8) e | Relaxation(30) | 42 (11.6) | 67 | 10.9 (8.5) | 4.4 (1) e |
| la Cour and Petersen (2015) | Denmark | Chronic pain | 109 | MBSR (54) | 46.5 (12.4) | 83 | 7.8 (5.5) | 19 (6.6) g | Waitlist (55) | 48.8 (12.2) | 87 | 11.8 (11.1) | 19.2 (5.2) g |
| Pincus et al. (2015) c | United Kingdom | Chronic low back pain | 105 | CCBT (45) | 43.7 (16.3) | 60 | 3.5 (3.2) | 14.9 (8.8) g | PT (60) | 45.4 (15.8) | 61 | 3.7 (3) | 15 (8.3) g |
| Trompetter et al. (2015) b | Netherlands | Chronic pain | 161 | ACT (238) | 52.9 (13.3) | 77 | — | 6.3 (1.6) e | Waitlist (77) | 53.2 (12) | 75 | — | 6.2 (1.6) e |
| Expressive writing (79) | 52.3 (11.8) | 76 | — | 6.1 (1.6) e | |||||||||
| Henriksson et al. (2016) | Sweden | Chronic pain | 107 | MBI (55) | 52.4 (10.8) | 93 | 15.1 (12.5) | 6.2 (1.3) e | Discussion forum (52) | 50.1 (9.9) | 94 | 13.5 (9.3) | 6.4 (1.8) e |
| Turner et al. (2016) | United States | Chronic low back pain | 341 | MBSR (116) | 50 (11.9) | 61 | — | 6 (1.5)e | TAU (113) | 48.9 (12.5) | 77 | — | 6 (1.6)e |
| CCBT (112) | 41.9 (12.6) | 59 | — | 6 (1.5)e | |||||||||
| Zgierska et al. (2016) a | United States | Chronic low back pain | 35 | MBI (21) | 51.8 (9.7) | — | — | 6.3 (1.2) g | Enhanced TAU (14) | 51.8 (9.7) | — | — | 4.9 (1.1) g |
| Clarke et al. (2017) | United Kingdom | Osteoarthritis | 31 | ACT (16) | 66 (7.3) | 75 | — | 7.7 (2.2)e | TAU (15) | 67 (10.7) | 67 | — | 7.3 (0.7)e |
| Herbert et al. (2017) a , b , c | United States | Chronic pain | 128 | In‐person ACT (65) | 52 (13.3) | 18 | — | 6 (0.3) g | Online ACT (63) | 52 (13.3) | 18 | — | 6.1 (0.2) g |
| Lin et al. (2017) | Germany | Chronic pain | 302 | Guided ACT (100) | 51.7 (12.3) | 86 | 9.7 (11.4) | 5.4 (1.5) e | Waitlist (101) | 50.3 (12.5) | 85 | 7.9 (8.2) | 5.1 (1.6)e |
| Unguided ACT (101) | 53.1 (14.2) | 81 | 11 (10.4) | 5.2 (1.5) e | |||||||||
| Montero‐Marín et al. (2018) | Spain | Fibromyalgia | 42 | MBI (23) | 50.8 (8.7) | 100 | — | — | Relaxation (19) | 52.2 (5.9) | 100 | — | — |
| Scott et al. (2018) | United Kingdom | Chronic pain | 63 | ACT (31) | 47.3 (14) | 68 | 15.9 (11.4) | 7.5 (1.3)e | RPT (32) | 43.8 (13.9) | 59 | 10.4 (7.3) | 7.3 (1.2)e |
| Simister et al. (2018) a | United Kingdom | Fibromyalgia | 67 | ACT (33) | 39.7 (9.4) | 95 | 10.2 (7.8) | 26.1 (8.4) d | TAU (34) | 39.7 (9.4) | 95 | 10.2 (7.8) | 25.8 (8.4) d |
| Pérez‐Aranda et al. (2019) | Spain | Fibromyalgia | 225 | MBSR (75) | 52.9 (7.9) | 97 | 13.9 (8.9) | — | TAU (75) | 52.7 (8.5) | 99 | 13.1 (9.7) | — |
| PE (75) | 54.2 (7.4) | 99 | 11.2 (7) | ||||||||||
| Veillette et al. (2019) | Canada | Chronic pain | 130 | ACT (64) | 51.9 (14.2) | 84 | — | 5.7 (1.6)e | Waitlist (66) | 50.2 (11) | 79 | — | 5.9 (1.4)e |
| Dindo et al. (2020) | United States | Chronic pain | 32 | ACT (20) | 37.7 (6.3) | 0 | — | 5.5 (0.4) g | TAU (12) | 34.7 (5.8) | 0 | — | 4.5 (0.5) g |
| Godfrey et al. (2020) c | United Kingdom | Chronic low back pain | 248 | ACT + PT (124) | 48.4 (14.6) | 61 | — | 6.1 (2.1) e | PT (124) | 47.5 (14) | 57 | — | 6.1 (1.9) e |
| Rickardsson et al. (2020) | Sweden | Chronic pain | 113 | ACT (57) | 48.4 (13.1) | 72 | 18.9 (12.7) | 5.2 (1.5) e | Waitlist (56) | 50.6 (11.1) | 79 | 17.3 (13.6) | 5.8 (1.5) e |
| Roslyakova et al. (2020) | France | Chronic pain | 94 | ACT + PRT (35) | 49.2 (1.6) | 76 | 12.2 (2.4) | 6.9 (1.8) e | PRT (59) | 46.4 (1.8) | 84 | 7.9 (0.9) | 6.9 (1.3) e |
| Scott et al. (2020) | United Kingdom | Chronic pain | 38 | ACT (25) | 55.8 (5.6) | 20 | 12.3 (7.9) | 6.8 (2.3) g | Waitlist (13) | 56 (6.2) | 31 | 9.9 (8.8) | 5.9 (1.7) g |
| Taheri et al. (2020) | Iran | Chronic pain | 50 | ACT (25) | 58.6 (9.3) | 75 | — | — | TAU (25) | 56 (9.7) | 60 | — | — |
| Bendelin et al. (2021) | Sweden | Chronic pain | 103 | ACT + MPRP (49) | 36.4 (9.7) | 88 | 8.4 (7.7) | 6.9 (1.8) e | MPRP (54) | 35.9 (9.8) | 83 | 5.9 (6) | 7.2 (1.5) e |
| Buhler et al. (2021) a | Canada | Chronic pain | 40 | ACT (23) | 51.2 (9.3) | 31 | 17.5 (11.3) | — | Waitlist (17) | 51.2 (9.3) | 31 | 17.5 (11.3) | — |
| Torrijos‐Zarcero et al. (2021) b , c | Spain | Chronic pain | 123 | MBI (62) | 48.3 (10.2) | 90 | — | 7.5 (1.5) e | CBT (61) | 49.3 (11.4) | 85 | — | 7.5 (1.4) e |
| Braun et al. (2022) | Germany | Chronic pain | 81 | ACT (43) | 57.2 (9.5) | 70 | — | 4.4 (1.8) e | TAU (38) | 56.7 (7.7) | 71 | — | 4.3 (1.6) e |
| Casey et al. (2022) | Ireland | Chronic pain | 175 | ACT + EX (87) | 48.4 (10.4) | 69 | 8.8 (7.5) | 6.2 (1.6) g | PT (88) | 47.7 (11.7) | 73 | 10.1 (8.3) | 6.5 (1.6) g |
| Diez et al. (2022) a | Spain | Chronic low back pain | 63 | MBSR (31) | 53 (−) | 66 | — | — | TAU (32) | 53 (−) | 66 | — | — |
| Hess Engström et al. (2022) | Sweden | Vulvodynia | 88 | ACT (49) | 24.2 (5.2) | 100 | 5.2 (4.7) | 6.8 (2.4) e | Waitlist (39) | 24.7 (3.3) | 100 | 4.6 (3.5) | 6.9 (1.8) e |
| Gasslander et al. (2022) c | Sweden | Chronic musculoskeletal pain | 187 | CCBT (95) | 45.6 (11.1) | 74 | 15.4 (11.1) | 4 (0.8) h | Waitlist (92) | 46.2 (11.2) | 73 | 14.3 (9.8) | 3.9 (1.1) h |
| Kanzler et al. (2022) | United States | Chronic pain | 26 | ACT (13) | 54 (−) | 63 | 9.7 (7.4) | 6.5 (1.9) e | Enhanced TAU (13) | 50 (−) | 46 | 14 (13.1) | 7.1 (1.6) e |
| Nagasawa et al. (2022) | Japan | Osteoarthritis | 30 | ACT (15) | 73.3 (7) | 93 | 5.3 (5.4) | 4.1 (1.8) e | PT (15) | 75.1 (6.9) | 87 | 2.3 (2.4) | 4.1 (1.7) e |
| Pérez‐Fernández et al. (2022) | Spain | Chronic pain | 90 | MBI (50) | 52.5 (9.1) | 90 | — | 2.7 (0.6) i | Waitlist (40) | 51.5 (8.9) | 88 | — | 2.6 (0.7) i |
| Plumb et al. (2022) a | United States | Osteoarthritis | 39 | ACT (19) | 71.8 (5.2) | 85 | — | 13.7 (3.8) j | Enhanced TAU (20) | 71.8 (5.2) | 85 | — | 14.9 (4.2) j |
| Bostrøm et al. (2023) | Norway | Chronic pain | 259 | CCBT (125) | 50 (−) | 82 | — | — | TAU (134) | 48 (−) | 80 | — | — |
| Hansen et al. (2023) | Denmark | Endometriosis | 39 | MBSR + ACT (19) | 28.9 (7.8) | 100 | 14 (8.3) | 6.1 (2.1) e | NPSI (19) | 33.8 (7.7) | 100 | 18.2 (6) | 5.5 (1.9) |
| Waitlist (16) | 32.8 (9) | 100 | 12.9 (7.5) | 6 (1.5) | |||||||||
| Maathz et al. (2023) | Sweden | Vestibulodynia | 37 | ACT (16) | 25.1 (2.9) | 100 | 18.5 (3.2) | — | Waitlist (21) | 28.2 (6.1) | 100 | 21.5 (5.5) | — |
| Sanabria‐Mazo, Colomer‐Carbonell, Borràs, et al. (2023), Sanabria‐Mazo, Colomer‐Carbonell, Fernández‐Vázquez, et al. (2023) | Spain | Chronic low back pain | 234 | ACT (78) | 54.9 (8.3) | 69 | 10.9 (7.9) | 6.9 (1.7) e | TAU (78) | 53.8 (10) | 65 | 11.2 (8) | 6.9 (1.7) e |
| BATD (78) | 54.9 (10.2) | 68 | 11.1 (8.7) | 6.5 (1.7) e | |||||||||
| Varallo et al. (2023) | Italy | Fibromyalgia | 180 | ACT (90) | 45.2 (6.4) | 100 | — | 4.9 (1.9) e | Enhanced TAU (90) | 44.7 (6.8) | 100 | — | 4.4 (1.2) e |
| Buhrman et al. (2024) | Sweden | Vestibulodynia | 88 | ACT (46) | 27 (5.2) | 100 | — | 1.6 (1.3) h | Waitlist (42) | 25 (4.6) | 100 | — | 1.8 (1.5) h |
| Gendreau et al. (2024) | United States | Fibromyalgia | 275 | ACT (140) | 49 (13.7) | 92 | 9.3 (11.1) | — | PE (135) | 49 (11.9) | 94 | 8.7 (8.9) | — |
| Solberg Nes et al. (2024) c | Norway | Chronic pain | 159 | CCBT (125) | 50 (−) | 82 | — | 5.1 (1.7) g | TAU (134) | 48 (−) | 80 | — | 5.4 (1.5) g |
| Pal et al. (2024) | India | Chronic low back pain | 195 | MBSR (98) | 48.7 (5.9) | 30 | — | 7 (1) e | PRT (97) | 49.3 (5.9) | 26 | — | 7.2 (0.8) e |
| Ramos et al. (2024) | Spain | Fibromyalgia | 57 | ACT (32) | 51.9 (8.3) | 100 | 14.5 (8.3) | 12.5 (13.4) k | Waitlist (25) | 52.1 (9.5) | 100 | 17.5 (9.5) | 9.7 (12.1) k |
| Reilly et al. (2024) | United States | Chronic pain | 113 | ACT (57) | 50.6 (16.6) | 25 | — | 7.2 (1.7) e | Waitlist (56) | 56.5 (16.6) | 14 | — | 7 (1.7) e |
| Robles et al. (2024) | Spain | Chronic low back pain | 32 | MBSR (19) | 52.4 (9.6) | 73 | — | 4.3 (0.7) e | Waitlist (13) | 59 (10.1) | 67 | — | 4.4 (0.9) e |
| Taub et al. (2024) | Israel | Fibromyalgia | 81 | MBSR (41) | 50.5 (12.4) | 88 | 6.5 (5.2) | — | Waitlist (40) | 48.2 (14) | 14 | 8.4 (6.9) | — |
| Liu et al. (2025) | China | Chronic low back pain | 40 | ACT + EX (20) | 72.8 (6.2) | 95 | — | 5.2 (1.8) e | EX (20) | 73.6 (6.2) | 85 | — | 5.1 (1.9) e |
Note: Studies are ordered chronologically by year of publication (oldest to most recent); within the same year, studies are listed alphabetically by first author.
Abbreviations: ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy; CCBT, contextual cognitive‐behavioural therapy; EX, exercise; MBI, mindfulness‐based intervention; MBSR, mindfulness‐based stress reduction; MPRP, multimodal pain rehabilitation program; NPSI, non‐specific psychological intervention (without mindfulness/ACT components); PE, psychoeducation; PRT, psychoeducation relaxation therapy; PT, physical therapy; RPT, recommended pharmacological treatment; SOC, selective optimization with compensation.
Only mean age, pain intensity, years of diagnosis (with standard deviation) and/or percentage of females were reported for the total sample.
CCBT or online ACT were included as comparators.
This study was included in the systematic review but was not eligible for the meta‐analyses.
Assessed with the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ).
Assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) or Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).
Assessed with the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMPQ).
Assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI).
Assessed with the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI).
Assessed with the Lattinen Index (LI).
Assessed with the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS).
Assessed with the SF‐36 Health Survey Questionnaire.
In total, the RCTs enrolled 6692 participants, with 3491 assigned to intervention groups and 3201 to control groups. Sample sizes ranged from 21 to 341 participants, with intervention groups ranging from 11 to 238 and control groups from 10 to 135 participants. Mean participant ages ranged from 24 to 83 years in intervention groups and from 25 to 83 years in control groups. Most RCTs included samples with a higher proportion of females. Nine trials recruited only female participants (Buhrman et al. 2024; Hansen et al. 2023; Hess Engström et al. 2022; Kristjánsdóttir et al. 2013b; Maathz et al. 2023; Montero‐Marín et al. 2018; Ramos et al. 2024; Varallo et al. 2023; Wicksell et al. 2013), and one recruited only male participants (Dindo et al. 2020). The mean duration of pain diagnosis ranged from 2 to 25 years in both intervention and control groups, and baseline pain intensity scores, mostly assessed with 0–10 rating scales such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) or the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), ranged from 4 to 8 across groups.
3.3. Intervention and Control Characteristics
Interventions were based on ACT (k = 40) (Alonso‐Fernández et al. 2015; Bendelin et al. 2021; Braun et al. 2022; Buhler et al. 2021; Buhrman et al. 2013, 2024; Casey et al. 2022; Clarke et al. 2017; Dindo et al. 2020; Gendreau et al. 2024; Godfrey et al. 2020; Herbert et al. 2017; Hess Engström et al. 2022; Johnston et al. 2010; Kanzler et al. 2022; Kemani et al. 2015; Kristjánsdóttir et al. 2013b; Lin et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2025; Luciano et al. 2014; Maathz et al. 2023; McCracken et al. 2013; Nagasawa et al. 2022; Plumb et al. 2022; Ramos et al. 2024; Reilly et al. 2024; Rickardsson et al. 2020; Roslyakova et al. 2020; Sanabria‐Mazo, Colomer‐Carbonell, Borràs, et al. 2023; Scott et al. 2018, 2020; Simister et al. 2018; Taheri et al. 2020; Thorsell et al. 2011; Trompetter et al. 2015; Varallo et al. 2023; Veillette et al. 2019; Wetherell et al. 2011; Wicksell et al. 2008, 2013), MBI (k = 15) (Diez et al. 2022; Dowd et al. 2015; Hansen et al. 2023; Henriksson et al. 2016; la Cour and Petersen 2015; Montero‐Marín et al. 2018; Morone et al. 2008; Pal et al. 2024; Pérez‐Aranda et al. 2019; Pérez‐Fernández et al. 2022; Robles et al. 2024; Taub et al. 2024; Torrijos‐Zarcero et al. 2021; Turner et al. 2016; Zgierska et al. 2016), and CCBT (k = 6) (Bostrøm et al. 2023; Buhrman et al. 2015; Gasslander et al. 2022; Pincus et al. 2015; Solberg Nes et al. 2024). Counts exceed 60 because some trials included multiple comparator arms and/or multiple providers. The study by Hansen et al. (2023), which combined MBSR with ACT, was classified as MBI because MBSR formed the core protocol.
Most interventions were delivered as stand‐alone programs (k = 49). Combined programs (k = 12) included combinations such as ACT with physical therapy (Godfrey et al. 2020), ACT with exercise (Casey et al. 2022; Liu et al. 2025), ACT with psychoeducation relaxation therapy (Roslyakova et al. 2020) and ACT with selective optimization plus compensation (SOC) (Alonso‐Fernández et al. 2015), as well as CCBT protocols integrating acceptance‐ and/or mindfulness strategies with additional therapeutic ingredients (Bostrøm et al. 2023; Buhrman et al. 2015; Gasslander et al. 2022; Pincus et al. 2015; Solberg Nes et al. 2024; Turner et al. 2016).
Intervention duration ranged from 1 day to 48 weeks (M = 8.5, SD = 5.5), and the number of sessions/modules ranged from 1 to 15 (M = 7.7, SD = 2.6). Session length ranged from 10 to 300 min (M = 100.6), with longer formats typically delivered face‐to‐face and shorter modules delivered via web‐ or app‐based platforms. Delivery modes comprised face‐to‐face (k = 32), online (k = 24), blended (k = 4) and phone‐based (k = 1). Treatment formats included individual (k = 31), group (k = 29) or combined individual and group delivery (k = 1). Regarding involvement, most were therapist‐delivered (k = 49), followed by self‐guided (k = 9) and mixed therapist‐delivered and self‐guided approaches (k = 3). Providers were primarily psychologists (k = 46), with additional contributions from MBSR instructors (k = 4), researchers (k = 4), physiotherapists (k = 2) and one physician (k = 1). In some interventions, no provider was involved as they were entirely self‐guided (k = 4).
Control groups included inactive comparators (k = 35), such as waitlist (k = 23) and treatment as usual (TAU; k = 12) and active comparators (k = 29), such as relaxation training (k = 5), enhanced TAU (k = 4), physical therapy (k = 4), psychoeducation (k = 3), discussion forums (k = 2), recommended pharmacological treatment (RPT; k = 2), CCBT (k = 2), expressive writing (k = 1), exercise (k = 1), non‐specific psychological interventions (k = 1), online ACT (k = 1), multimodal pain rehabilitation program (k = 1), SOC (k = 1) and self‐help website (k = 1). Assessments were conducted at post‐treatment only (k = 16), one follow‐up (k = 38) or two follow‐ups (k = 6), with follow‐up periods ranging from 4 to 60 weeks after baseline. Dropout rates in intervention groups ranged from 0% to 70%, and in control groups from 0% to 71%.
Psychological flexibility and its dimensions were assessed with a range of validated instruments. The global construct of psychological flexibility (k = 18) was evaluated using the PIPS (k = 12) and the AAQ‐II (k = 6). At the dimension level, acceptance was measured with the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ; k = 47); cognitive defusion with the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ; k = 3); values with the Chronic Pain Values Inventory (CPVI; k = 3) and Valuing Questionnaire (VQ; k = 1); and committed action with the Committed Action Questionnaire (CAQ; k = 4) and the Engaged Living Scale (ELS; k = 2). Regarding outcome role, psychological flexibility and its dimensions were specified as a primary outcome (k = 4), secondary outcome (k = 24) or process variable (k = 20); in some studies, this was not specified (k = 12).
A detailed description of intervention and control characteristics for all included RCTs is provided in Table 2. In addition, the results of each included study are available in Data S2.
TABLE 2.
Characteristics of intervention and control arms of the included RCTs (k = 60).
| First author (year) | Therapy (structure) | Duration (sessions/modules) | Session/module duration | Delivery (format) | Provider (involvement) | Control (type) | Assessments (weeks from baseline) | Dropout intervention (%) | Dropout control (%) | Outcomes (instruments) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morone et al. (2008) | MBI (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 90 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | MBSR instructor (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) | Post (32) | Post (6) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Wicksell et al. (2008) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (10 sessions) | 60 min | Face‐to‐face (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (16) | Post (0) FW (16) | Post (10) FW (9) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) |
| Johnston et al. (2010) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 6 weeks (6 sessions) | — | Blended (individual) | Researcher (self‐guided) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (6) | Post (50) | Post (33) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) Values (CPVI) |
| Thorsell et al. (2011) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 7 weeks (7 sessions) | 90 min | Blended (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Relaxation (active) | Pre (0) Post (7) FW 1 (31) FW 2 (55) | Post (22) FW 1 (33) FW 2 (44) | Post (13) FW 1 (24) FW 2 (38) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Wetherell et al. (2011) a | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 90 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | CCBT (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (32) | Post (−) FW (−) | Post (−) FW (−) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Buhrman et al. (2013) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 7 weeks (7 sessions) | — | Online—asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Discussion forum (active) | Pre (0) Post (7) FW (24) | Post (17) FW (17) | Post (16) FW (−) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Kristjánsdóttir et al. (2013a, 2013b) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 4 weeks (1 session) | 60 min | Online—asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Self‐help website (active) | Pre (0) Post (4) FW 1 (28) FW 2 (56) | Post (33) FW 1 (47) FW 2 (44) | Post (47) FW 1 (43) FW 2 (36) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| McCracken et al. (2013) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 2 weeks (4 sessions) | 240 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (4) FW (12) | Post (16) FW (24) | Post (25) FW (22) | Psychological inflexibility (AAQ‐II) Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Wicksell et al. (2013) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 12 weeks (12 sessions) | 90 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist/medical staff (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (12) FW (24) | Post (13) FW (17) | Post (6) FW (18) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) |
| Luciano et al. (2014) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 150 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (24) | Post (10) FW (12) | Post (6) FW (11) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| RPT (active) | ||||||||||
| Alonso‐Fernández et al. (2015) | ACT + SOC (combined) | 9 weeks (9 sessions) | 120 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | SOC (active) | Pre (0) Post (9) | Post (10) | Post (24) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Buhrman et al. (2015) a | CCBT (combined) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual, tailored) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (6) | Post (18) | Post (17) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Dowd et al. (2015) | MBCT (stand‐alone) | 6 weeks (12 sessions) | 20 min | Online—asynchronous (individual) | None (self‐guided) | PE (active) | Pre (0) Post (6) FW (24) | Post (55) FW (63) | Post (40) FW (57) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Kemani et al. (2015) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 12 weeks (12 sessions) | 90 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist/medical staff (therapist‐delivered) | Relaxation (active) | Pre (0) Post (12) FW 1 (36) FW 2 (60) | Post (20) FW 1 (20) FW 2 (37) | Post (37) FW 1 (40) FW 2 (40) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| la Cour and Petersen (2015) | MBSR (stand‐alone) | 9 weeks (9 sessions) | 180 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | MBSR instructor (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (9) FW (33) | Post (20) FW (26) | Post (15) FW (40) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Pincus et al. (2015) a | CCBT (combined) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 50 min | Face‐to‐face (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | PT (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (24) | Post (27) FW (42) | Post (27) FW (36) | Psychological inflexibility (AAQ‐II) Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Trompetter et al. (2015) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 12 weeks (9 modules) | 10–15 min | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered and self‐guided) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (12) FW (36) | Post (28) FW (35) | Post (36) FW (37) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) Committed action (ELS) |
| Expressive writing (active) | ||||||||||
| Henriksson et al. (2016) | MBI (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 10 min | Online—asynchronous (individual) | None (self‐guided) | Discussion forum (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) | Post (35) | Post (21) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Turner et al. (2016) | MBSR (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 120 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | MBSR instructor (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW 1 (26) FW 2 (52) | Post (−) FW 1 (−) FW 2 (−) | Post (−) FW 1 (−) FW 2 (−) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| CCBT (combined) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | |||||||||
| Zgierska et al. (2016) | MBI (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 120 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Enhanced TAU (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (26) | Post (0) FW (0) | Post (0) FW (0) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Clarke et al. (2017) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 6 weeks (6 sessions) | 90 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (16) | Post (6) FW (19) | Post (27) FW (47) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Herbert et al. (2017) a | In‐person ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 60 min | Online – synchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Online ACT (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (32) | Post (29) FW (37) | Post (14) FW (19) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Lin et al. (2017) | Guided ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 60 min | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (9) FW (24) | Post (31) FW (46) | Post (11) FW (26) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Unguided ACT (stand‐alone) | None (self‐guided) | |||||||||
| Montero‐Marín et al. (2018) | MBI (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (11 sessions) | 120 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Relaxation (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (12) | Post (13) FW (13) | Post (16) FW (13) | Psychological inflexibility (AAQ‐II) |
| Scott et al. (2018) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 12 weeks (8 sessions) | 20 min | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | RPT (active) | Pre (0) Post (12) FW (36) | Post (26) FW (26) | Post (22) FW (19) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) Commited action (CAQ) |
| Simister et al. (2018) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (7 sessions) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (20) | Post (10) FW (17) | Post (0) FW (19) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) Cognitive fusion (CFQ) Values (VLQ) |
| Pérez‐Aranda et al. (2019) | MBSR (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 120 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (6) FW (48) | Post (23) FW (35) | Post (24) FW (33) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) |
| PE (active) | ||||||||||
| Veillette et al. (2019) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 60–240 min | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (self‐guided) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (21) | Post (20) FW (47) | Post (20) FW (−) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Dindo et al. (2020) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 1 day (1 session) | 300 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (12) | Post (26) | Post (17) | Psychological inflexibility (AAQ‐II) |
| Godfrey et al. (2020) a | ACT + PT (combined) | 3 weeks (3 sessions) | 60 min | Blended (individual) | Physiotherapist (therapist‐delivered) | PT (active) | Pre (0) Post (12) FW (48) | Post (17) FW (22) | Post (17) FW (32) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) Commited action (CAQ) |
| Rickardsson et al. (2020) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (self‐guided) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (32) | Post (19) FW (35) | Post (4) FW (4) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) |
| Roslyakova et al. (2020) | ACT + PRT (combined) | 15 weeks (15 sessions) | 120 min (ACT) + 90 min (PRT) | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | PRT (active) | Pre (0) Post (15) FW (27) | Post (11) FW (37) | Post (3) FW (46) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Scott et al. (2020) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (12 sessions) | 60 min | Online—asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (20) | Post (24) FW (32) | Post (8) FW (23) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Taheri et al. (2020) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | — | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (20) | Post (20) FW (20) | Post (8) FW (16) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Bendelin et al. (2021) | ACT + MPRP (stand‐alone) | 6 weeks (8 sessions) | 15 min | Online—asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | MPRP (active) | Pre (0) Post (6) FW (48) | Post (20) FW (63) | Post (30) FW (59) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Buhler et al. (2021) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 60 min | Blended (individual + group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered and self‐guided) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (20) | Post (39) FW (70) | Post (12) FW (−) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Torrijos‐Zarcero et al. (2021) a | MBI (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 150 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | CCBT (active) | Pre (0) Post (6) | Post (32) | Post (23) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Braun et al. (2022) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 9 weeks (7 sessions) | 60 min | Online—asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (9) FW 1 (24) FW 2 (48) | Post (39) FW 1 (39) FW 2 (43) | Post (22) FW 1 (33) FW 2 (38) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) Cognitive fusion (CFQ) Commited action (CAQ) |
| Casey et al. (2022) | ACT + EX (combined) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 210 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist/physiotherapist (therapist‐delivered) | PT (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW 1 (12) FW 2 (48) | Post (26) FW 1 (19) FW 2 (49) | Post (19) FW 1 (21) FW 2 (56) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) Commited action (CAQ) |
| Diez et al. (2022) | MBSR (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (9 sessions) | 210 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist/physiotherapist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) | Post (5) | Post (0) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Hess Engström et al. (2022) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 6 weeks (6 sessions) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Researcher (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (6) FW (39) | Post (39) FW (48) | Post (28) FW (43) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Gasslander et al. (2022) a | CCBT (combined) | 10 weeks (6–13 modules) | — | Online—asynchronous (individual, tailored) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (12) FW (48) | Post (31) FW (44) | Post (15) FW (71) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Kanzler et al. (2022) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 12 weeks (5 sessions) | 60 min | Face‐to‐face (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Enhanced TAU (active) | Pre (0) Post (12) FW (36) | Post (23) FW (23) | Post (0) FW (0) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) Values (CPVI) |
| Nagasawa et al. (2022) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 60 min | Face‐to‐face (individual) | Physiotherapist (therapist‐delivered) | PT (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (12) | Post (33) FW (47) | Post (13) FW (53) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) |
| Pérez‐Fernández et al. (2022) | MBI (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 150 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) | Post (20) | Post (3) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Plumb et al. (2022) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 6 weeks (2 sessions) | 45 min | Phone‐based (individual) | Researcher (therapist‐delivered) | Enhanced TAU (active) | Pre (0) Post (6) | Post (0) | Post (5) | Psychological inflexibility (AAQ‐II) |
| Bostrøm et al. (2023) a | CCBT (combined) | 9 weeks (9 sessions) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual) | None (self‐guided) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (12) | Post (11) | Post (10) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Hansen et al. (2023) | MBSR + ACT (combined) | 10 weeks (10 sessions) | 180 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | NPSI (active) | Pre (0) Post (10) | Post (26) | Post (20) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Waitlist (inactive) | ||||||||||
| Maathz et al. (2023) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 6 weeks (6 modules) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (7) | Post (19) | Post (0) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Sanabria‐Mazo, Colomer‐Carbonell, Borràs, et al. (2023), Sanabria‐Mazo, Colomer‐Carbonell, Fernández‐Vázquez, et al. (2023) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 90 min | Online – synchronous (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (48) | Post (40) FW (47) | Post (18) FW (32) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| BATD (stand‐alone) | ||||||||||
| Varallo et al. (2023) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 3 weeks (3 sessions) | 60 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Enhanced TAU (active) | Pre (0) Post (3) | Post (4) | Post (7) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Buhrman et al. (2024) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 10 weeks (8 modules) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (10) FW (48) | Post (18) FW (14) | Post (14) FW (31) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Gendreau et al. (2024) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 12 weeks (8 modules) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual) | None (self‐guided) | PE (active) | Pre (0) Post (12) | Post (12) | Post (4) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) |
| Solberg Nes et al. (2024) a | CCBT (combined) | 48 weeks (9 modules) | — | Online – asynchronous (individual) | Psychologist (self‐guided) | TAU (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (24) FW (48) | Post (26) FW (25) | Post (16) FW (18) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Pal et al. (2024) | MBSR (stand‐alone) | 5 weeks (5 sessions) | 90 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Physician (therapist‐delivered) | PRT (active) | Pre (0) Post (5) FW (25) | Post (8) FW (18) | Post (6) FW (16) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Ramos et al. (2024) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 5 weeks (5 sessions) | 120 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (32) | Post (28) FW (28) | Post (0) FW (0) | Cognitive fusion (CFQ) |
| Reilly et al. (2024) | ACT (stand‐alone) | 7 weeks (7 sessions) | — | Online—asynchronous (individual) | Researcher (self‐guided) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (7) FW (11) | Post (15) FW (20) | Post (14) FW (14) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) Values (CPVI) |
| Robles et al. (2024) | MBSR (stand‐alone) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 150 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | MBSR instructor (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (8) | Post (5) | Post (15) | Pain acceptance (CPAQ) |
| Taub et al. (2024) | MBSR (stand‐alone) | 10 weeks (11 sessions) | 120 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | Waitlist (inactive) | Pre (0) Post (10) FW (34) | Post (16) FW (29) | Post (15) FW (−) | Psychological inflexibility (PIPS) |
| Liu et al. (2025) | ACT + EX (combined) | 8 weeks (8 sessions) | 60 min | Face‐to‐face (group) | Psychologist (therapist‐delivered) | EX (active) | Pre (0) Post (8) FW (32) | Post (10) FW (28) | Post (15) FW (15) | Psychological inflexibility (AAQ‐II) |
Note: Studies are ordered chronologically by year of publication (oldest to most recent); within the same year, studies are listed alphabetically by first author.
Abbreviations: AAQ‐II, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II; ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy; BATD, behavioural activation therapy for depression; CAQ, Committed Action Questionnaire; CCBT, contextual cognitive‐behavioural therapy; CFQ, Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire; CPAQ, Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire; CPVI, Chronic Pain Values Inventory; ELS, Engaged Living Scale; EX, exercise; FW, follow‐up; MBI, mindfulness‐based intervention; MBSR, mindfulness‐based stress reduction; MPRP, multimodal pain rehabilitation program; NPSI, non‐specific psychological intervention (without mindfulness/ACT components); PE, psychoeducation; PIPS: Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale; PT, physical therapy; PRT, psychoeducation relaxation therapy; RPT, recommended pharmacological treatment; SOC, selective optimization with compensation; VLQ, Valued Living Questionnaire.
This study was included in the systematic review but was not eligible for the meta‐analyses.
3.4. Risk of Bias
Figure 2 presents a bar plot summarizing the proportions of studies assigned to each risk‐of‐bias category across domains. Sample size was used as the study weight because not all depicted RCTs were included in the meta‐analyses. Overall, 1 study (2%) was judged low risk, 6 (10%) raised some concerns, and 53 (88%) were high risk. The highest level of concern was observed for bias risk in outcome measurement, with 85% of studies rated as high risk, whereas the remaining domains showed predominantly low or moderate risk. Figure S1 presents the corresponding traffic‐light plot with domain‐level judgements for each study.
FIGURE 2.
Risk of bias summary across domains.
3.5. Meta‐Analytic Effects
3.5.1. Methodological Considerations
Before conducting the meta‐analyses, specific considerations were necessary to address trials with multiple study arms (k = 7). These included Luciano et al. (2014; ACT, waitlist and pharmacological treatment), Trompetter et al. (2015; ACT, waitlist and expressive writing), Turner et al. (2016; MBSR, CCBT and TAU), Lin et al. (2017; guided ACT, unguided ACT and waitlist), Pérez‐Aranda et al. (2019; MBSR, TAU and psychoeducation), Hansen et al. (2023; MBSR with ACT, non‐specific intervention and waitlist) and Sanabria‐Mazo, Colomer‐Carbonell, Borràs, et al. (2023; ACT, BATD and TAU). To maintain the independence of observations, inactive and active control arms were pooled into a single control group (e.g., Trompetter et al. 2015; Pérez‐Aranda et al. 2019; and Hansen et al. 2023), intervention arms were pooled when they represented variants of the same approach (Lin et al. 2017), and only comparisons with contextual relevance were retained (Luciano et al. 2014: ACT vs. waitlist; Sanabria‐Mazo, Colomer‐Carbonell, Borràs, et al. 2023: ACT vs. TAU; Turner et al. 2016: MBSR vs. TAU). These decisions were consistently applied across analyses in accordance with Cochrane recommendations (Higgins et al. 2024).
3.5.2. Main Effects
Meta‐analyses were conducted for psychological flexibility and three of its core dimensions (i.e., acceptance, committed action and values). For psychological flexibility, data were available from 17 studies on immediate effects, 5 on short‐term effects and 6 on long‐term effects. For acceptance, 38 studies contributed to immediate effects, 13 to short‐term effects and 12 to long‐term effects. For committed action, 4 studies contributed to immediate effects, 2 to short‐term effects and 4 to long‐term effects. For values, 4 studies provided data on immediate effects, 1 on short‐term effects and 1 on long‐term effects. Across assessment periods, psychological flexibility was measured using the PIPS (immediate: k = 12; short‐term: k = 3; long‐term: k = 5) and AAQ‐II (immediate: k = 5; short‐term: k = 2; long‐term: k = 1). Acceptance was measured using the CPAQ (immediate: k = 38; short‐term: k = 13; long‐term: k = 12). Committed action was measured using the CAQ (immediate: k = 3; short‐term: k = 2; long‐term: k = 3) and ELS (immediate: k = 1; long‐term: k = 1), whereas values were measured using the CPVI (immediate: k = 3; long term, k = 1) and VQ (immediate: k = 1; short‐term: k = 1). Evidence was insufficient to support meta‐analyses for cognitive defusion, present‐moment awareness, and self‐as‐context. Forest plots present pooled effect sizes (Hedges' g) with 95% confidence intervals for each variable and time point. As shown in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, positive values indicate greater improvements in the intervention group relative to the control group, whereas negative values indicate greater improvements in the control group.
FIGURE 3.
Forest plots of meta‐analytic effects on global psychological flexibility across immediate, short‐term and long‐term follow‐up.
FIGURE 4.
Forest plots of meta‐analytic effects on acceptance across immediate, short‐term and long‐term follow‐up.
FIGURE 5.
Forest plots of meta‐analytic effects on committed action across immediate and long‐term follow‐up.
FIGURE 6.
Forest plot of meta‐analytic effects on values‐based action at immediate posttreatment.
Certainty of evidence across outcomes is summarized in Table 3. For psychological flexibility, certainty was low at post‐treatment due to risk of bias and inconsistency; very low at short‐term due to risk of bias, imprecision, and publication bias; and low at long‐term due to risk of bias and imprecision. Acceptance was low at post‐treatment and short‐term due to risk of bias and inconsistency, and very low at long‐term due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Committed action and values were consistently low at all time points due to risk of bias and imprecision.
TABLE 3.
Summary of GRADE evidence for acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based interventions in adults with chronic pain.
| Outcomes | Probable outcome with intervention | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Psychological flexibility at post‐treatment PIPS, AAQ‐II Higher scores indicate lower psychological flexibility |
The mean psychological flexibility in the intervention groups was 0.57 SDs higher (95% CI: 0.317 to 0.819) |
1432 participants (17 studies) |
⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ |
|
Psychological flexibility at short term PIPS, AAQ‐II Higher scores indicate lower psychological flexibility |
The mean psychological flexibility in the intervention groups was 0.69 SDs higher (95% CI: 0.079 to 1.308) |
159 participants (5 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ |
|
Psychological flexibility at long term PIPS, AAQ‐II Higher scores indicate lower psychological flexibility |
The mean psychological flexibility in the intervention groups was 0.35 SDs higher (95% CI: 0.111 to 0.592) |
539 participants (6 studies) |
⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ |
|
Acceptance at post‐treatment CPAQ Higher scores indicate higher acceptance |
The mean acceptance in the intervention groups was 0.77 SDs higher (95% CI: 0.502 to 1.036) |
2968 participants (38 studies) |
⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ |
|
Acceptance at short term CPAQ Higher scores indicate higher acceptance |
The mean acceptance in the intervention groups was 0.59 SDs higher (95% CI: 0.271 to 0.918) |
1258 participants (13 studies) |
⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ |
|
Acceptance at long term CPAQ Higher scores indicate higher acceptance |
The mean acceptance in the intervention groups was 0.41 SDs higher (95% CI: 0.021 to 0.793) |
976 participants (12 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ |
|
Committed action at post‐treatment ELS, CAQ Higher scores indicate higher committed action |
The mean committed action in the intervention groups was 0.116 SDs higher (95% CI: −0.1 to 0.332) |
409 participants (4 studies) |
⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ |
|
Committed action at long‐term ELS, CAQ Higher scores indicate higher committed action |
The mean committed action in the intervention groups was 0.184 SDs higher (95% CI: –0.072 to 0.44) |
346 participants (4 studies) |
⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ |
|
Values at post‐treatment CPVI, VLQ Higher scores indicate greater alignment with personal values |
The mean values score in the intervention groups was 0.17 SDs higher (95% CI: –0.849 to 0.51) |
134 participants (4 studies) |
⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ |
Note: Significant SDs (p < 0.05) are shown in bold. Population: adults with chronic pain. Settings: community, primary, secondary or tertiary care. Intervention: acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based interventions. Comparison: active or inactive control. GRADE Working Group levels for the certainty of evidence. High: High confidence that the true effect is close to the estimate. Moderate: Moderate confidence; the true effect may be somewhat different. Low: Low confidence; the true effect may be substantially different. Very low: Very low confidence; the true effect is likely very different.
Abbreviations: AAQ‐II, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II; CAQ, Committed Action Questionnaire; CI, confidence interval; CPAQ, Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire; CPVI, Chronic Pain Values Questionnaire; ELS, Engaged Living Scale; PIPS, Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale; SD, standard deviation; VLQ, Valued Living Questionnaire.
Downgraded once for risk of bias.
Downgraded once for inconsistency.
Downgraded once for imprecision.
Downgraded once for publication bias.
Acceptance‐ and MBIs significantly improved psychological flexibility and acceptance relative to control conditions over time. Psychological flexibility showed significant immediate (g = 0.57, p < 0.001), short‐term (g = 0.69, p = 0.035) and long‐term (g = 0.35, p = 0.013) effects. Similarly, acceptance exhibited significant immediate (g = 0.77, p < 0.001), short‐term (g = 0.59, p = 0.002) and long‐term (g = 0.41, p = 0.041) effects. However, no significant immediate (g = 0.12, p = 0.19) or long‐term effects (g = 0.18, p = 0.11) were observed for committed action, and no significant immediate effects were found for values (g = −0.17, p = 0.49).
Heterogeneity across outcomes ranged from low to high. Psychological flexibility showed significant moderate heterogeneity for immediate effects (I 2 = 62.6%, p < 0.001), but was low to moderate and non‐significant at both short‐term (I 2 = 41.3%, p = 0.15) and long‐term (I 2 = 7.2%, p = 0.37) follow‐ups. Acceptance showed high significant heterogeneity across time points (I 2 = 75.5%–87%, all p < 0.001). Committed action and values showed negligible to low non‐significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%–29.2%, p > 0.05). Between‐study variance was moderate to high across outcomes (τ 2 = 0.08–0.53), and the corresponding prediction intervals (g = −0.10 to 2.30) suggest that negative effects cannot be ruled out in future studies.
Publication bias was examined only for the immediate effects of global psychological flexibility and acceptance, as Egger's test is recommended only when the number of studies is at least 10 (Sterne et al. 2011). Egger's tests provided no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. Funnel plots and detailed Egger's test statistics are presented in Data S3.
3.6. Moderator Analysis
Moderation analyses were conducted only when significant heterogeneity (p < 0.10) was detected and when at least 10 studies were available for the overall moderator analysis. Accordingly, analyses were performed only for the immediate effects of psychological flexibility and acceptance. The specific effect sizes for the categorical moderators (i.e., control condition type, intervention type, delivery mode, treatment format, therapist involvement, pain diagnosis, intervention provider, intervention structure and instrument type) are reported in Tables 4 and 5, and for the continuous moderators (i.e., intervention duration, session duration, session frequency, dropout rate, proportion of females and age) in Table 6. Instrument type was examined only for global psychological flexibility, as all meta‐analysed acceptance studies used the CPAQ.
TABLE 4.
Categorical moderators of psychological flexibility (immediate effects).
| Moderators | Sample | Effect size | Heterogeneity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| k | n | g | 95% CI | p | I 2 (%) | Q | p | |
| Overall | 17 | 1432 | 0.57 | 0.317 to 0.819 | < 0.001 | 62.6 | 42.82 | < 0.001 |
| Control condition type | 4.06 | 0.044 | ||||||
| Inactive | 8 | 571 | 0.84 | 0.363 to 1.326 | 0.004 | 64.4 | 19.68 | |
| Active | 9 | 861 | 0.38 | 0.121 to 0.634 | 0.009 | 51.3 | 16.44 | |
| Intervention type | 0 | 0.951 | ||||||
| ACT | 14 | 1142 | 0.58 | 0.259 to 0.891 | 0.002 | 67.1 | 4 | |
| MBI | 3 | 290 | 0.56 | −0.134 to 1.257 | 0.074 | 28.5 | 0 | |
| Delivery mode | 3.31 | 0.191 | ||||||
| Face‐to‐face | 10 | 552 | 0.61 | 0.164 to 1.053 | 0.013 | 69.5 | 29.5 | |
| Internet‐based | 6 | 842 | 0.61 | 0.379 to 0.831 | < 0.001 | 19.3 | 6.19 | |
| Blended/other a | 1 | 38 | −0.22 | −1.097 to 0.656 | 0.622 | — | 0 | |
| Treatment format | 0.01 | 0.909 | ||||||
| Individual | 8 | 799 | 0.57 | 0.226 to 0.921 | 0.006 | 57.5 | 16.48 | |
| Group | 9 | 633 | 0.6 | 0.142 to 1.061 | 0.017 | 67.7 | 24.8 | |
| Therapist involvement | 3.26 | 0.196 | ||||||
| Therapist‐delivered | 13 | 783 | 0.51 | 0.157 to 0.86 | 0.008 | 65.5 | 34.77 | |
| Self‐guided | 3 | 477 | 0.78 | 0.664 to 0.893 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.17 | |
| Mixed a | 1 | 172 | 0.5 | −0.229 to 1.226 | 0.179 | — | 0 | |
| Pain diagnosis | 3.56 | 0.169 | ||||||
| Unspecified chronic pain | 8 | 653 | 0.63 | 0.091 to 1.176 | 0.028 | 76.6 | 29.85 | |
| Localized musculoskeletal pain | 4 | 206 | 0.28 | −0.287 to 0.839 | 0.217 | 25 | 4 | |
| Fibromyalgia/other widespread pain | 5 | 573 | 0.67 | 0.341 to 1.003 | 0.005 | 34.7 | 6.13 | |
| Intervention provider | 9.25 | 0.01 | ||||||
| Psychologist | 14 | 1132 | 0.61 | 0.327 to 0.887 | < 0.001 | 62.7 | 34.85 | |
| Non‐psychologist | 2 | 53 | −0.07 | −2.577 to 2.427 | 0.769 | 0 | 0.45 | |
| None a | 1 | 247 | 0.73 | 0.08 to 1.381 | 0.028 | — | 0 | |
| Intervention structure | 4.53 | 0.033 | ||||||
| Stand‐alone | 14 | 1252 | 0.64 | 0.364 to 0.907 | < 0.001 | 61.7 | 33.95 | |
| Combined | 3 | 180 | 0.2 | −0.481 to 0.888 | 0.329 | 1.4 | 2.03 | |
| Instrument type | 0.08 | 0.772 | ||||||
| AAQ‐II | 5 | 199 | 0.68 | −0.476 to 1.841 | 0.177 | 80.8 | 20.87 | |
| PIPS | 12 | 1233 | 0.56 | 0.349 to 0.767 | < 0.001 | 49.4 | 21.74 | |
Note: Significant differences (p < 0.05) are shown in bold.
Abbreviations: AAQ‐II, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II; ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy; MBI, mindfulness‐based intervention; PIPS, Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale.
Additional sensitivity analyses were conducted for the moderators delivery mode, therapist involvement and intervention provider. The subgroup marked with an asterisk was excluded from these analyses.
TABLE 5.
Categorical moderators of acceptance (immediate effects).
| Moderators | Sample | Effect size | Heterogeneity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| k | n | g | 95% CI | p | I 2 (%) | Q | p | |
| Overall | 38 | 2968 | 0.77 | 0.502 to 1.036 | < 0.001 | 87 | 285.05 | < 0.001 |
| Control condition type | 0.3 | 0.585 | ||||||
| Inactive | 21 | 1710 | 0.69 | 0.413 to 0.957 | < 0.001 | 75.3 | 80.9 | |
| Active | 17 | 1258 | 0.84 | 0.315 to 1.36 | 0.004 | 91.6 | 190.2 | |
| Intervention type | 0.09 | 0.764 | ||||||
| ACT | 27 | 1932 | 0.74 | 0.42 to 1.068 | < 0.001 | 86.4 | 5 | |
| MBI | 11 | 1036 | 0.83 | 0.273 to 1.392 | 0.008 | 89.4 | 1 | |
| Delivery mode | 2.25 | 0.324 | ||||||
| Face‐to‐face | 19 | 1602 | 0.78 | 0.404 to 1.154 | < 0.001 | 89.7 | 174.08 | |
| Internet‐based | 16 | 1250 | 0.58 | 0.334 to 0.821 | < 0.001 | 61 | 38.48 | |
| Blended/other a | 3 | 116 | 1.94 | −2.855 to 6.726 | 0.224 | 94.9 | 39.26 | |
| Treatment format | 0.01 | 0.996 | ||||||
| Individual | 18 | 1247 | 0.76 | 0.316 to 1.202 | 0.002 | 84.1 | 107.15 | |
| Group | 19 | 1692 | 0.78 | 0.402 to 1.156 | < 0.001 | 89.9 | 177.71 | |
| Combined a | 1 | 29 | 0.82 | −0.834 to 2.478 | 0.034 | — | 0 | |
| Therapist involvement | 0.46 | 0.794 | ||||||
| Therapist‐delivered | 31 | 2389 | 0.78 | 0.469 to 1.1 | < 0.001 | 88.5 | 259.76 | |
| Self‐guided | 5 | 321 | 0.74 | −0.17 to 1.655 | 0.087 | 81.9 | 22.1 | |
| Mixed a | 2 | 258 | 0.63 | −1.635 to 2.886 | 0.176 | 0 | 0.76 | |
| Pain diagnosis | 0.02 | 0.99 | ||||||
| Unspecified chronic pain | 21 | 1461 | 0.76 | 0.351 to 1.167 | < 0.001 | 85.8 | 140.91 | |
| Localized musculoskeletal pain | 9 | 878 | 0.8 | 0.135 to 1.468 | 0.024 | 90 | 80.07 | |
| Fibromyalgia/other widespread pain | 8 | 629 | 0.79 | 0.273 to 1.307 | 0.009 | 86 | 50.1 | |
| Intervention provider | 0.43 | 0.807 | ||||||
| Psychologist | 28 | 2159 | 0.73 | 0.425 to 1.043 | < 0.001 | 86.8 | 205.25 | |
| Non‐psychologist | 8 | 667 | 0.8 | 0.012 to 1.591 | 0.047 | 88.7 | 61.97 | |
| None a | 2 | 142 | 1.16 | −6.985 to 9.298 | 0.322 | 91.3 | 11.51 | |
| Intervention structure | 22.2 | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Stand‐alone | 32 | 2265 | 0.9 | 0.606 to 1.198 | < 0.001 | 85.6 | 215.03 | |
| Combined | 6 | 703 | 0.11 | −1.104 to 0.328 | 0.242 | 13.4 | 5.78 | |
Note: Significant differences (p < 0.05) are shown in bold.
Abbreviations: ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy; MBI, mindfulness‐based intervention.
Additional sensitivity analyses were conducted for the moderators delivery mode, treatment format, therapist involvement and intervention provider. The subgroup marked with an asterisk was excluded from these analyses.
TABLE 6.
Continuous moderators of psychological flexibility and acceptance (immediate effects).
| Moderators | Sample | Effect size | Heterogeneity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| k | n | β | 95% CI | p | I 2 (%) | QE | p | |
| Psychological flexibility | ||||||||
| Intervention duration (weeks) | 17 | 1432 | −0.027 | −0.108 to 0.053 | 0.480 | 69.7 | 42.77 | < 0.001 |
| Session duration (min) | 15 | 1085 | 0.003 | −0.001 to 0.007 | 0.133 | 66.6 | 34.13 | 0.001 |
| Session frequency (number of sessions) | 17 | 1432 | −0.015 | −0.102 to 0.072 | 0.714 | 69.5 | 42.53 | < 0.001 |
| Dropout rates (%) | 17 | 1432 | 0.004 | −0.027 to 0.035 | 0.768 | 68.2 | 42.82 | < 0.001 |
| Proportion of females (%) | 17 | 1432 | −0.012 | −0.025 to 0.002 | 0.077 | 64.9 | 39.3 | < 0.001 |
| Age (years) | 17 | 1432 | −0.022 | −0.048 to 0.003 | 0.083 | 62.5% | 37.28 | 0.001 |
| Acceptance | ||||||||
| Intervention duration (weeks) | 38 | 2968 | −0.091 | −0.198 to 0.016 | 0.094 | 89 | 234.28 | < 0.001 |
| Session duration (min) | 30 | 2576 | −0.001 | 0.007 to 0.004 | 0.691 | 92.2 | 257.97 | < 0.001 |
| Session frequency (number of sessions) | 38 | 2968 | −0.038 | −0.146 to 0.07 | 0.485 | 89.9 | 259.03 | < 0.001 |
| Dropout rates (%) | 37 | 2627 | 0.008 | −0.03 to 0.014 | 0.486 | 68.2 | 42.82 | < 0.001 |
| Proportion of females (%) | 37 | 2933 | −0.001 | −0.013 to 0.012 | 0.922 | 90.4 | 284.53 | < 0.001 |
| Age (years) | 38 | 2968 | 0.001 | −0.022 to 0.024 | 0.916 | 90.1 | 284.94 | < 0.001 |
Note: Significant differences (p < 0.05) are shown in bold.
Abbreviations: ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy; MBI, mindfulness‐based intervention.
3.6.1. Categorical Moderators
3.6.1.1. Control Condition Type
For psychological flexibility, the effects of the interventions differed significantly by control condition (Q 1 = 4.06, p = 0.044). RCTs comparing interventions with inactive controls showed larger effects (g = 0.84) than those with active controls (g = 0.38). In contrast, no significant subgroup differences were found for acceptance. The effects did not differ between active and inactive control conditions (Q 1 = 0.30, p = 0.59; g = 0.68 and 0.84).
3.6.1.2. Intervention Type
No moderating effects were identified in psychological flexibility between ACT and MBIs (Q 1 = 0.01, p = 0.95). The effects observed in ACT (g = 0.58) and MBIs (g = 0.56) were comparable. A similar pattern was observed for acceptance, with no evidence of moderation by intervention type. The effects did not differ between ACT and MBIs (Q 1 = 0.09, p = 0.76; g = 0.74 and 0.83).
3.6.1.3. Delivery Mode
The impact of delivery mode on psychological flexibility was not significant (Q 2 = 3.31, p = 0.19). Effects were comparable across face‐to‐face (g = 0.61), internet‐based (g = 0.61) and phone‐based (g = −0.22) formats. A complementary sensitivity analysis of delivery mode, excluding the phone‐based format study (k = 1), showed consistent non‐significant results (Q 1 = 0.05, p = 0.83; g = 0.67 and 0.62). Regarding acceptance, the delivery mode did not moderate intervention effects. Effect sizes were similar for face‐to‐face, internet‐based and blended/other formats (Q 2 = 2.25, p = 0.32; g = 0.78, 0.58 and 1.93). A sensitivity analysis excluding blended/other formats yielded the same non‐significant results (Q 1 = 1.02, p = 0.31; g = 0.78 and 0.57).
3.6.1.4. Treatment Format
No moderating effects of treatment format were found on psychological flexibility (Q 1 = 0.01, p = 0.91). Interventions delivered individually (g = 0.57) and those implemented in groups (g = 0.60) yielded comparable effects. For acceptance, no significant moderating effects were found across the three treatment formats. Effect sizes were similar for individual, group and combined formats (Q 2 = 0.01, p = 0.99; g = 0.76, 0.78 and 0.82). A sensitivity analysis excluding the combined‐format study (k = 1) yielded the same non‐significant results (Q 1 = 0.01, p = 0.96; g = 0.76 and 0.77).
3.6.1.5. Therapist Involvement
For psychological flexibility, no moderating effect of therapist involvement was identified (Q 2 = 3.26, p = 0.20). Effect sizes were comparable across therapist‐delivered (g = 0.51), self‐guided (g = 0.78) and blended interventions (g = 0.50). A sensitivity analysis excluding the blended‐format study (k = 1) yielded a consistent non‐significant difference (Q 1 = 2.73, p = 0.10; g = 0.51 and 0.78). Likewise, acceptance did not significantly differ by therapist involvement. Effect sizes were similar for therapist‐delivered, self‐guided and blended interventions (Q 2 = 0.46, p = 0.79; g = 0.78, 0.74 and 0.63). A sensitivity analysis excluding the blended subgroup (k = 2) yielded the same non‐significant difference (Q 1 = 0.01, p = 0.91; g = 0.79 and 0.74).
3.6.1.6. Pain Diagnosis
Moderator analyses revealed no significant differences across pain diagnoses (Q 2 = 3.56, p = 0.17). Effect sizes were comparable for unspecified chronic pain (g = 0.63), localized musculoskeletal pain (g = 0.28) and fibromyalgia or other widespread pain (g = 0.67). Similarly, acceptance did not vary by the type of pain diagnosis. Effects were similar for unspecified chronic pain, localized musculoskeletal pain and fibromyalgia or other widespread pain (Q 2 = 0.02, p = 0.99; g = 0.76, 0.80 and 0.79).
3.6.1.7. Intervention Provider
Provider type significantly moderated outcomes for psychological flexibility (Q 2 = 9.25, p = 0.010). Interventions delivered by psychologists (g = 0.61) or interventions without therapist involvement (g = 0.73) showed larger effects than those delivered by non‐psychologists (g = −0.07). A sensitivity analysis excluding the self‐guided intervention (k = 1) yielded the same significant pattern (Q 1 = 8.36, p = 0.004; g = 0.61 and −0.01). In contrast, provider type did not moderate the intervention's effects on acceptance. Effect sizes were similar for psychologist‐, non‐psychologist– and self‐guided interventions (Q 2 = 0.43, p = 0.81; g = 0.73, 0.80 and 1.16). A sensitivity analysis excluding the self‐guided subgroup (k = 2) yielded consistent results (Q 1 = 0.04, p = 0.83; g = 0.73 and 0.81).
3.6.1.8. Intervention Structure
Intervention structure significantly moderated the effects on psychological flexibility (Q 1 = 4.53, p = 0.033). Effect sizes were larger for stand‐alone interventions (g = 0.64) than for combined ones (g = 0.20). For acceptance, a significant moderation effect was also observed. Effect sizes were larger for stand‐alone than for combined interventions (Q 1 = 22.20, p < 0.001; g = 0.90 and 0.11).
3.6.1.9. Instrument Type
For psychological flexibility, instrument type did not significantly moderate intervention effects (Q 1 = 0.08, p = 0.772). Effects were comparable between studies using the AAQ‐II (g = 0.68) and the PIPS (g = 0.56), although heterogeneity was higher in studies using the AAQ‐II (I 2 = 80.8%) than in those using the PIPS (I 2 = 49.4%). This analysis was not conducted for acceptance because all meta‐analysed studies used the CPAQ.
3.6.2. Continuous Moderators
None of the continuous variables examined (intervention duration, session duration, session frequency, dropout rate, proportion of females or age) significantly moderated the effects on either psychological flexibility or acceptance. Detailed results are provided in Table 6.
4. Discussion
This review synthesized the effects of acceptance‐ and MBIs on psychological flexibility in people with chronic pain. Sixty RCTs were included in the systematic review, of which 51 contributed to the meta‐analysis. These interventions were associated with significant improvements in psychological flexibility and acceptance compared with control conditions, with small‐to‐medium effects that were maintained over time. However, these findings require caution because most trials were at high risk of bias, the certainty of evidence was low to very low and heterogeneity was substantial. Evidence for values and committed action was limited and non‐significant, and evidence was insufficient to meta‐analyse cognitive defusion, present‐moment awareness and self‐as‐context. Therefore, evidence remains uneven across flexibility dimensions, limiting conclusions beyond global psychological flexibility and acceptance.
Previous meta‐analyses in chronic pain have shown that acceptance‐ and MBIs reduce pain intensity, depression, anxiety, disability, and pain‐interference and improve quality of life (Hilton et al. 2017; Lai et al. 2023; Martinez‐Calderon et al. 2024; Veehof et al. 2016). However, these reviews have focused on clinical outcomes, and none have examined psychological flexibility and its dimensions. Understanding this process is clinically relevant because it indicates that these treatments produce theoretically consistent and specific effects. Taken together with evidence that psychological flexibility is associated with pain‐related outcomes and treatment response (Ding and Zheng 2022; Fang and Ding 2022; McCracken 2024; McCracken and Morley 2014; McCracken and Vowles 2014), this convergence is clinically meaningful.
Moderator analyses were limited to immediate effects on global psychological flexibility and acceptance. For global psychological flexibility and acceptance, stand‐alone interventions showed greater and more consistent effects than combined approaches. This finding is consistent with some studies (Dragioti et al. 2018; Kamper et al. 2014), but contrasts with others (Häuser et al. 2009; Thieme et al. 2017). These findings may suggest that focusing on a single targeted component is associated with larger effects, although moderator results should be interpreted with caution, as they may reflect methodological or study‐level differences rather than true clinical differences.
No significant differences in intervention effects were found by pain type, in line with the transdiagnostic nature of psychological flexibility and with evidence that psychological factors tend to be similar across chronic pain conditions (Burke et al. 2015; Fillingim et al. 2020). This suggests applicability across chronic pain populations. In addition, both ACT and MBI showed comparable effects, consistent with previous research suggesting that psychological flexibility may serve as an underlying process in both approaches (Gu et al. 2015; Scott et al. 2016). This finding, however, contrasts with meta‐analyses reporting greater effectiveness of these interventions for localized pain than for non‐specific pain (Lai et al. 2023; Ma et al. 2023).
No significant differences were observed in delivery mode, treatment format or level of support for global psychological flexibility and acceptance, suggesting effects across implementation formats. This differs from previous evidence in chronic pain (Alldredge et al. 2023; Lai et al. 2023; Mehta et al. 2019), where face‐to‐face delivery, group‐based formats, and therapist‐guided programmes have been associated with larger effects on clinical outcomes such as pain intensity, disability or psychological distress rather than process‐related outcomes. It is possible that clinical outcomes are strongly shaped by a combination of common therapeutic factors, such as therapeutic alliance, interpersonal support or treatment context, and intervention‐specific processes, whereas changes in psychological flexibility may be closely tied to how acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based strategies are implemented across formats. This suggests that effects on psychological flexibility and acceptance may be comparable across formats.
Regarding the provider type, significant differences were found for global psychological flexibility. Psychologist‐delivered interventions showed larger effects than those delivered by non‐psychologists. This result is supported by evidence indicating that psychological interventions tend to yield better clinical outcomes when delivered by clinicians with specialized psychological training (Bostick 2017; Cuijpers et al. 2021; Del Re et al. 2021; Frank et al. 2020). Nevertheless, psychologist‐delivered interventions improved global psychological flexibility but not acceptance, suggesting that their added value may be domain‐specific rather than universal. A plausible explanation is that psychologists typically receive more training in behavioural and contextual therapeutic skills, which may be relevant for enhancing global psychological flexibility. The type of control condition also emerged as a significant moderator for global psychological flexibility but not for acceptance, with inactive control groups showing larger effects.
Continuous moderators did not significantly predict effect sizes for psychological flexibility or its dimensions. Neither intervention duration, session length, dropout rates, proportion of females, nor participants' age was associated with treatment effects, indicating that changes in psychological flexibility are consistent across a wide range of intervention characteristics and sample compositions. This finding differs from previous meta‐analyses reporting that longer treatment duration is associated with improved outcomes, although those studies did not specifically examine psychological flexibility (Ma et al. 2023; Veehof et al. 2011). These results suggest that improvements in flexibility‐related processes may depend less on structural or demographic factors and more on the therapeutic strategies employed.
4.1. Future Recommendations and Implications
Future studies should test psychological flexibility as a mediator of treatment effects on clinical outcomes such as disability, pain intensity, psychological distress and quality of life. This is important because psychological flexibility was often assessed as a secondary or process‐related outcome rather than as a primary target of evaluation, which may reflect the continued emphasis of chronic pain trials on clinical outcomes over mechanisms of change. Identifying which components of acceptance‐ and mindfulness‐based therapies most effectively enhance psychological flexibility, and for whom, may be informative. This may inform more process‐based and individualized interventions. From a practical perspective, ACT and MBI showed comparable effectiveness, with no differences between in‐person and online formats. This suggests that brief online programs incorporating acceptance‐based practices may represent a scalable option. Interventions delivered by psychologists showed stronger effects for global psychological flexibility, highlighting the value of specialized psychological training.
4.2. Limitations and Strengths
Several limitations should be acknowledged. Heterogeneity was substantial, particularly for acceptance, suggesting that differences in intervention content, control conditions, populations and measurement approaches may have contributed to variability in effect estimates. The risk of bias was high in most included trials. As is common in psychological research, bias in outcome measurement was rated as high because outcomes were self‐reported, evaluators were often not blinded to group assignment and psychological measures are often subjective. According to the RoB algorithm, a single high‐risk domain yields an overall risk rating. Therefore, the global risk‐of‐bias rating should be interpreted with caution, particularly given the methodological constraints of psychological intervention trials, where some blinding criteria are difficult to satisfy (Munder and Barth 2018). Consistent with this, the GRADE assessment rated the certainty of the evidence as low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to the high risk of bias.
In addition, the small number of eligible studies prevented meta‐analyses for the flexibility dimensions of cognitive defusion, present‐moment awareness and self‐as‐context. This limits conclusions about specific dimensions of the hexaflex model, even though broader measures of global psychological flexibility and acceptance may capture clinically relevant flexibility‐related processes. Moderator analyses also require caution, as some specific subgroups were represented by few studies. The pattern of findings suggests reasonable stability over time; however, long‐term results should be interpreted cautiously because not all studies included long‐term follow‐up assessments.
Although widely used, the AAQ‐II has been criticized for its overlap with general distress and its limited coverage of psychological flexibility, which should be considered when interpreting results from this measure. Conceptual and operational heterogeneity across instruments assessing psychological flexibility may have contributed to between‐study variability. In addition, ongoing debate remains regarding whether psychological flexibility and inflexibility represent opposite ends of a bipolar continuum or partially distinct constructs, which may further complicate the interpretation and aggregation of broad flexibility measures across studies (Lucas et al. 2025; Spencer and Tyndall 2025). This issue is particularly relevant to broad measures such as the AAQ‐II and PIPS, which may capture both overlapping and distinct flexibility‐related processes. Finally, samples were predominantly female, potentially underrepresenting males. While sex did not moderate the main results, future research should address this imbalance to improve generalizability.
Despite these limitations, this is the first systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine psychological flexibility and its dimensions as processes that improve following acceptance‐ and MBIs in people with chronic pain. Among the strengths of the study are the large number of studies included in the meta‐analyses and the substantial total sample size. Additionally, the inclusion of multiple follow‐up time points and the comprehensive assessment of categorical and continuous moderators further strengthen the robustness of the findings.
5. Conclusion
This review suggests that acceptance‐ and MBIs may improve psychological flexibility in people with chronic pain. This extends previous evidence on pain‐related clinical outcomes by showing potential effects on process‐related variables, although the overall certainty of the evidence was low. The results were consistent, with larger effects observed when interventions were delivered by psychologists or implemented as stand‐alone programs. These findings cautiously support psychological flexibility as a potentially important treatment‐related process in chronic pain, while underscoring the need for more methodologically rigorous trials and mediation analyses.
Author Contributions
Juan P. Sanabria‐Mazo and Juan V. Luciano conceived and designed the study. Juan P. Sanabria‐Mazo, Carla Rodríguez‐Freire and Estíbaliz Royuela‐Colomer wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Juan P. Sanabria‐Mazo, Carla Rodríguez‐Freire, Estíbaliz Royuela‐Colomer, Paula Ponce‐López, Valentina Barrios and Jaime Navarrete participated in study selection, risk‐of‐bias assessment, methodological quality evaluation or data extraction. Estíbaliz Royuela‐Colomer analyzed the data. Paula Ponce‐López, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Valentina Barrios, Jaime Navarrete, Adrián Pérez‐Aranda, Lance M. McCracken and Juan V. Luciano contributed to the final drafting and editing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results and to the revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Funding
Juan P. Sanabria‐Mazo has a Juan de la Cierva postdoctoral contract awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Science (JDC2024‐053318‐I). Carla Rodríguez‐Freire has a research contract from the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII; ICI20/00080). Jaime Navarrete has a postdoctoral contract awarded by the Centre for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP; CB22/02/00052). The authors thank CIBERESP for the financial support (CB22/02/00052 & CB06/02/1010). The ISCIII and CIBERESP did not play any role in the analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Disclosure
Use of Artificial Intelligence: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) was not used in the preparation of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supporting information
Data S1: References for studies included in the review.
Data S2: Characteristics of the intervention and control conditions of the included RCTs.
Data S3: Eggers' test and funnel plots.
Table S1: Search strategy.
Table S2: Characteristics of excluded studies.
Sanabria‐Mazo, J. P. , Rodríguez‐Freire C., Royuela‐Colomer E., et al. 2026. “Do Acceptance‐ and Mindfulness‐Based Interventions Improve Psychological Flexibility in People With Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” European Journal of Pain 30, no. 7: e70342. 10.1002/ejp.70342.
The first three authors share co‐first authorship.
Juan P. Sanabria‐Mazo, Estíbaliz Royuela‐Colomer, and Juan V. Luciano share co‐corresponding authorship.
The last author is the senior author.
Contributor Information
Juan P. Sanabria‐Mazo, Email: juanpablo.sanabria@urv.cat.
Estíbaliz Royuela‐Colomer, Email: estibaliz.royuela@uab.cat.
Juan V. Luciano, Email: juanvicente.luciano@uab.cat.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available at: https://osf.io/kb4xr.
References
- Alldredge, C. , Burlingame G., and Rosendahl J.. 2023. “Group Psychotherapy for Chronic Pain: A Meta‐Analysis.” Psychotherapy 60, no. 2: 194–205. 10.1037/pst0000485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Alonso‐Fernández, M. , López‐López A., Losada A., González J. L., and Wetherell J. L.. 2015. “Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Selective Optimization With Compensation for Institutionalized Older People With Chronic Pain.” Pain Medicine 17, no. 2: 264–277. 10.1111/pme.12885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bendelin, N. , Gerdle B., Blom M., Södermark M., and Andersson G.. 2021. “Internet‐Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Added to Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 24: 5872. 10.3390/jcm10245872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Borenstein, M. , Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P. T., and Rothstein H. R.. 2009. Introduction to Meta‐Analysis. 1st ed. Wiley. 10.1002/9780470743386. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bostick, G. P. 2017. “Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions Delivered by Non‐Psychologists on Low Back Pain and Disability: A Qualitative Systematic Review.” Spine Journal 17, no. 11: 1722–1728. 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bostrøm, K. , Børøsund E., Eide H., et al. 2023. “Short‐Term Findings From Testing EPIO, a Digital Self‐Management Program for People Living With Chronic Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 25: e47284. 10.2196/47284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Braun, L. , Terhorst Y., Titzler I., et al. 2022. “Lessons Learned From an Attempted Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial for Improvement of Chronic Pain‐Associated Disability in Green Professions: Long‐Term Effectiveness of a Guided Online‐Based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (PACT‐A).” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 13858. 10.3390/ijerph192113858. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Buhler, J. N. , Holens P. L., and Sharpe D.. 2021. “A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy‐Based Intervention for Chronic Pain for Military and Police.” Military Behavioral Health 9, no. 4: 463–474. 10.1080/21635781.2021.1982086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Buhrman, M. , Hällström H., Fridén A., et al. 2024. “Guided Internet‐Based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Provoked Vestibulodynia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” European Journal of Pain 28, no. 7: 1185–1201. 10.1002/ejp.2253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Buhrman, M. , Skoglund A., Husell J., et al. 2013. “Guided Internet‐Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 51, no. 6: 307–315. 10.1016/j.brat.2013.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Buhrman, M. , Syk M., Burvall O., Hartig T., Gordh T., and Andersson G.. 2015. “Individualized Guided Internet‐Delivered Cognitive‐Behavior Therapy for Chronic Pain Patients With Comorbid Depression and Anxiety: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Clinical Journal of Pain 31, no. 6: 504–516. 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Burke, A. L. J. , Mathias J. L., and Denson L. A.. 2015. “Psychological Functioning of People Living With Chronic Pain: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” British Journal of Clinical Psychology 54, no. 3: 345–360. 10.1111/bjc.12078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Casey, M.‐B. , Smart K. M., Segurado R., et al. 2022. “Exercise Combined With Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Compared With a Standalone Supervised Exercise Programme for Adults With Chronic Pain: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” Pain 163, no. 6: 1158–1171. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Casey, M. B. , Takemasa S., O'Reilly T., et al. 2024. “Exercise Combined With Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: One‐Year Follow‐Up From a Randomized Controlled Trial.” European Journal of Pain 28, no. 6: 913–928. 10.1002/ejp.2229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cheung, M. W.‐L. 2019. “A Guide to Conducting a Meta‐Analysis With Non‐Independent Effect Sizes.” Neuropsychology Review 29, no. 4: 387–396. 10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, S. P. , Poulis N., Moreton B. J., Walsh D. A., and Lincoln N. B.. 2017. “Evaluation of a Group Acceptance Commitment Therapy Intervention for People With Knee or Hip Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.” Disability and Rehabilitation 39, no. 7: 663–670. 10.3109/09638288.2016.1160295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, S. P. , Vase L., and Hooten W. M.. 2021. “Chronic Pain: An Update on Burden, Best Practices, and New Advances.” Lancet 397, no. 10289: 2082–2097. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00393-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cuijpers, P. , Karyotaki E., Ciharova M., Miguel C., Noma H., and Furukawa T. A.. 2021. “The Effects of Psychotherapies for Depression on Response, Remission, Reliable Change, and Deterioration: A Meta‐Analysis.” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 144, no. 3: 288–299. 10.1111/acps.13335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Del Re, A. C. , Flückiger C., Horvath A. O., and Wampold B. E.. 2021. “Examining Therapist Effects in the Alliance–Outcome Relationship: A Multilevel Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 89, no. 5: 371–378. 10.1037/ccp0000637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Diez, G. G. , Anitua E., Castellanos N., Vázquez C., Galindo‐Villardón P., and Alkhraisat M. H.. 2022. “The Effect of Mindfulness on the Inflammatory, Psychological and Biomechanical Domains of Adult Patients With Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.” PLoS One 17, no. 11: e0276734. 10.1371/journal.pone.0276734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dindo, L. , Johnson A. L., Lang B., Rodrigues M., Martin L., and Jorge R.. 2020. “Development and Evaluation of an 1‐Day Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Workshop for Veterans With Comorbid Chronic Pain, TBI, and Psychological Distress: Outcomes From a Pilot Study.” Contemporary Clinical Trials 90: 105954. 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ding, D. , and Zheng M.. 2022. “Associations Between Six Core Processes of Psychological Flexibility and Functioning for Chronic Pain Patients: A Three‐Level Meta‐Analysis.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 13: 893150. 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.893150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dowd, H. , Hogan M. J., McGuire B. E., et al. 2015. “Comparison of an Online Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy Intervention With Online Pain Management Psychoeducation: A Randomized Controlled Study.” Clinical Journal of Pain 31, no. 6: 517–527. 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dragioti, E. , Evangelou E., Larsson B., and Gerdle B.. 2018. “Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Programmes for Clinical Pain Conditions: An Umbrella Review.” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 50, no. 9: 779–791. 10.2340/16501977-2377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fang, S. , and Ding D.. 2022. “Which Outcome Variables Are Associated With Psychological Inflexibility/Flexibility for Chronic Pain Patients? A Three‐Level Meta‐Analysis.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 1069748. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1069748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fillingim, R. , Ohrbach R., Greenspan J., et al. 2020. “Associations of Psychologic Factors With Multiple Chronic Overlapping Pain Conditions.” Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache 34: s85–s100. 10.11607/ofph.2584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Frank, H. E. , Becker‐Haimes E. M., and Kendall P. C.. 2020. “Therapist Training in Evidence‐Based Interventions for Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Training Approaches and Outcomes.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 27, no. 3: e12330. 10.1111/cpsp.12330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gasslander, N. , Andersson G., Boström F., et al. 2022. “Tailored Internet‐Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Individuals With Chronic Pain and Comorbid Psychological Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 51, no. 5: 408–434. 10.1080/16506073.2022.2065528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gendreau, R. M. , McCracken L. M., Williams D. A., et al. 2024. “Self‐Guided Digital Behavioural Therapy Versus Active Control for Fibromyalgia (PROSPER‐FM): A Phase 3, Multicentre, Randomised Controlled Trial.” Lancet 404, no. 10450: 364–374. 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00909-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Godfrey, E. , Wileman V., Galea Holmes M., et al. 2020. “Physical Therapy Informed by Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (PACT) Versus Usual Care Physical Therapy for Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Pain 21, no. 1–2: 71–81. 10.1016/j.jpain.2019.05.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gu, J. , Strauss C., Bond R., and Cavanagh K.. 2015. “How Do Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy and Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction Improve Mental Health and Wellbeing? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Mediation Studies.” Clinical Psychology Review 37: 1–12. 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, K. E. , Brandsborg B., Kesmodel U. S., et al. 2023. “Psychological Interventions Improve Quality of Life Despite Persistent Pain in Endometriosis: Results of a 3‐Armed Randomized Controlled Trial.” Quality of Life Research 32, no. 6: 1727–1744. 10.1007/s11136-023-03346-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harrer, M. , Cuijpers P., Furukawa T. A., and Ebert D.. 2019. “Doing Meta‐Analysis in R: A Hands‐On Guide (Version 1.0.0).” Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/record/2551803.
- Häuser, W. , Bernardy K., Arnold B., Offenbächer M., and Schiltenwolf M.. 2009. “Efficacy of Multicomponent Treatment in Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.” Arthritis and Rheumatism 61, no. 2: 216–224. 10.1002/art.24276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, S. C. , Strosahl K. D., and Wilson K. G.. 2012. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change. 2nd ed (pp. xiv, 402). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
- Henriksson, J. , Wasara E., and Rönnlund M.. 2016. “Effects of Eight‐Week‐Web‐Based Mindfulness Training on Pain Intensity, Pain Acceptance, and Life Satisfaction in Individuals With Chronic Pain.” Psychological Reports 119, no. 3: 586–607. 10.1177/0033294116675086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herbert, M. S. , Afari N., Liu L., et al. 2017. “Telehealth Versus In‐Person Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.” Journal of Pain 18, no. 2: 200–211. 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hess Engström, A. , Bohm‐Starke N., Kullinger M., et al. 2022. “Internet‐Based Treatment for Vulvodynia (EMBLA)—A Randomized Controlled Study.” Journal of Sexual Medicine 19, no. 2: 319–330. 10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.11.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, J. , Thomas J., Chandler J., et al., eds. 2024. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.5(updated August 2024). Cochrane. http://www.cochrane.org/handbook. [Google Scholar]
- Hilton, L. , Hempel S., Ewing B. A., et al. 2017. “Mindfulness Meditation for Chronic Pain: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 51, no. 2: 199–213. 10.1007/s12160-016-9844-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnston, M. , Foster M., Shennan J., Starkey N. J., and Johnson A.. 2010. “The Effectiveness of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Self‐Help Intervention for Chronic Pain.” Clinical Journal of Pain 26, no. 5: 393–402. 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181cf59ce. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kamper, S. J. , Apeldoorn A. T., Chiarotto A., et al. 2014. “Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation for Chronic Low Back Pain.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, no. 9: CD000963. 10.1002/14651858.CD000963.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kanzler, K. E. , Robinson P. J., McGeary D. D., et al. 2022. “Addressing Chronic Pain With Focused Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in Integrated Primary Care: Findings From a Mixed Methods Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.” BMC Primary Care 23, no. 1: 77. 10.1186/s12875-022-01690-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kemani, M. K. , Olsson G. L., Lekander M., Hesser H., Andersson E., and Wicksell R. K.. 2015. “Efficacy and Cost‐Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Applied Relaxation for Longstanding Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Clinical Journal of Pain 31, no. 11: 1004–1016. 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kristjánsdóttir, Ó. B. , Fors E. A., Eide E., et al. 2013a. “A Smartphone‐Based Intervention With Diaries and Therapist Feedback to Reduce Catastrophizing and Increase Functioning in Women With Chronic Widespread Pain. Part 2: 11‐Month Follow‐Up Results of a Randomized Trial.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 15, no. 3: e72. 10.2196/jmir.2442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kristjánsdóttir, Ó. B. , Fors E. A., Eide E., et al. 2013b. “A Smartphone‐Based Intervention With Diaries and Therapist‐Feedback to Reduce Catastrophizing and Increase Functioning in Women With Chronic Widespread Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 15, no. 1: e5. 10.2196/jmir.2249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- la Cour, P. , and Petersen M.. 2015. “Effects of Mindfulness Meditation on Chronic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Pain Medicine 16, no. 4: 641–652. 10.1111/pme.12605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lai, L. , Liu Y., McCracken L. M., Li Y., and Ren Z.. 2023. “The Efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Three‐Level Meta‐Analysis and a Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 165: 104308. 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lin, J. , Paganini S., Sander L., et al. 2017. “An Internet‐Based Intervention for Chronic Pain.” Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 114, no. 41: 681–688. 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J. Q. J. , Mak Y. W., Tang A. L. Y., et al. 2025. “Effects of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Plus Exercise for Older Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial With Qualitative Interviews.” Journal of Pain 30: 105350. 10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lucas, J. , Lackner J. M., Gudleski G., Rogers A. H., Becerra R., and Naragon‐Gainey K.. 2025. “One Construct or Many? Clarifying the Structure and Meaning of Measures of Psychological and Cognitive Flexibility and Their Components in a Community and Chronic Pain Sample.” Assessment. 10.1177/10731911251399030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Luciano, J. V. , Guallar J. A., Aguado J., et al. 2014. “Effectiveness of Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Fibromyalgia: A 6‐Month Randomized Controlled Trial (EFFIGACT Study).” Pain 155, no. 4: 693–702. 10.1016/j.pain.2013.12.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ma, T.‐W. , Yuen A. S.‐K., and Yang Z.. 2023. “The Efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Clinical Journal of Pain 39, no. 3: 147–157. 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maathz, P. , McCracken L. M., Eriksson V., et al. 2023. “A Feasibility Trial of Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia.” Scandinavian Journal of Pain 23, no. 3: 476–482. 10.1515/sjpain-2022-0146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Martinez‐Calderon, J. , García‐Muñoz C., Rufo‐Barbero C., Matias‐Soto J., and Cano‐García F. J.. 2024. “Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews With Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.” Journal of Pain 25, no. 3: 595–617. 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCracken, L. M. 2024. “Psychological Flexibility, Chronic Pain, and Health.” Annual Review of Psychology 75, no. 1: 601–624. 10.1146/annurev-psych-020223-124335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCracken, L. M. , and Morley S.. 2014. “The Psychological Flexibility Model: A Basis for Integration and Progress in Psychological Approaches to Chronic Pain Management.” Journal of Pain 15, no. 3: 221–234. 10.1016/j.jpain.2013.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCracken, L. M. , Sato A., and Taylor G. J.. 2013. “A Trial of a Brief Group‐Based Form of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for Chronic Pain in General Practice: Pilot Outcome and Process Results.” Journal of Pain 14, no. 11: 1398–1406. 10.1016/j.jpain.2013.06.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCracken, L. M. , and Vowles K. E.. 2014. “Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Mindfulness for Chronic Pain: Model, Process, and Progress.” American Psychologist 69, no. 2: 178–187. 10.1037/a0035623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCracken, L. M. , Yu L., and Vowles K. E.. 2022. “New Generation Psychological Treatments in Chronic Pain.” BMJ 376: e057212. 10.1136/bmj-2021-057212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McGowan, J. , Sampson M., Salzwedel D. M., Cogo E., Foerster V., and Lefebvre C.. 2016. “Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 75: 40–46. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McGuinness, L. A. 2021. “Risk of Bias Plots.” https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/rob‐plots.html. [DOI] [PubMed]
- McGuinness, L. A. , and Higgins J. P. T.. 2020. “Risk‐Of‐Bias VISualization (Robvis): An R Package and Shiny Web App for Visualizing Risk‐Of‐Bias Assessments.” Research Synthesis Methods 12: 1–7. 10.1002/jrsm.1411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mehta, S. , Peynenburg V. A., and Hadjistavropoulos H. D.. 2019. “Internet‐Delivered Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Chronic Health Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 42, no. 2: 169–187. 10.1007/s10865-018-9984-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Methley, A. M. , Campbell S., Chew‐Graham C., McNally R., and Cheraghi‐Sohi S.. 2014. “PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A Comparison Study of Specificity and Sensitivity in Three Search Tools for Qualitative Systematic Reviews.” BMC Health Services Research 14, no. 1: 579. 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Montero‐Marín, J. , Navarro‐Gil M., Puebla‐Guedea M., et al. 2018. “Efficacy of “Attachment‐Based Compassion Therapy” in the Treatment of Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 8: 307. 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morone, N. E. , Greco C. M., and Weiner D. K.. 2008. “Mindfulness Meditation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.” Pain 134, no. 3: 310–319. 10.1016/j.pain.2007.04.038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Munder, T. , and Barth J.. 2018. “Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool in the Context of Psychotherapy Outcome Research.” Psychotherapy Research 28, no. 3: 347–355. 10.1080/10503307.2017.1411628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nagasawa, Y. , Shibata A., Fukamachi H., Ishii K., and Oka K.. 2022. “Physical Therapist‐Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Exercise for Older Outpatients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Physical Therapy Science 34, no. 12: 784–790. 10.1589/jpts.34.784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ouzzani, M. , Hammady H., Fedorowicz Z., and Elmagarmid A.. 2016. “Rayyan—A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews.” Systematic Reviews 5, no. 1: 210. 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Page, M. J. , McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., et al. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ 372: n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pal, A. , Mukhopadhyay P., Bhattacharyya D., and Ray S.. 2024. “Effects of a Mindfulness‐Based Intervention on Pain Intensity, Disability and Quality of Life of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients: A Randomised Study.” Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 68, no. 10: 915–920. 10.4103/ija.ija_361_24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paschali, M. , Lazaridou A., Sadora J., et al. 2024. “Mindfulness‐Based Interventions for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Clinical Journal of Pain 40, no. 2: 105–113. 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pérez‐Aranda, A. , Feliu‐Soler A., Montero‐Marín J., et al. 2019. “A Randomized Controlled Efficacy Trial of Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction Compared With an Active Control Group and Usual Care for Fibromyalgia: The EUDAIMON Study.” Pain 160, no. 11: 2508–2523. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pérez‐Fernández, J. I. , Salaberria K., and Ruiz De Ocenda Á.. 2022. “Mindfulness‐Based Pain Management (MBPM) for Chronic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” Mindfulness 13, no. 12: 3153–3165. 10.1007/s12671-022-02023-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Pincus, T. , Anwar S., McCracken L. M., et al. 2015. “Delivering an Optimised Behavioural Intervention (OBI) to People With Low Back Pain With High Psychological Risk; Results and Lessons Learnt From a Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial of Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) vs. Physiotherapy.” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 16, no. 1: 147. 10.1186/s12891-015-0594-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Plumb, J. C. , Kelleher S., Diachina A., Riley J., and Somers T.. 2022. “Linking Physical Activity to Personal Values: Feasibility and Acceptability Randomized Pilot of a Behavioral Intervention for Older Adults With Osteoarthritis Pain.” Pilot and Feasibility Studies 8, no. 1: 164. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1182374/v1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Protect Lab . 2019. “Companion R Package for the Guide Doing Meta‐Analysis in R.” https://dmetar.protectlab.org/.
- Ramos, C. , Ríos F. L., Muñante G. P., and Ordóñez‐Carrasco J.. 2024. “Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for Fibromyalgia Patients.” Clínica y Salud 35, no. 2: 39–48. 10.5093/clysa2024a1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Reilly, E. D. , Kelly M. M., Grigorian H. L., et al. 2024. “Virtual Coach–Guided Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.” JMIR Formative Research 8: e56437. 10.2196/56437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rickardsson, J. , Gentili C., Holmström L., et al. 2020. “Internet‐Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as Microlearning for Chronic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial With 1‐Year Follow‐Up.” European Journal of Pain 25, no. 5: 1012–1030. 10.1002/ejp.1723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Robles, E. , Blanco I., Díez G., and Vázquez C.. 2024. “Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction for Chronic Pain: Enhancing Psychological Well‐Being Without Altering Attentional Biases Towards Pain Faces.” European Journal of Pain 29, no. 2: e4714. 10.1002/ejp.4714. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rometsch, C. , Martin A., Junne F., and Cosci F.. 2025. “Chronic Pain in European Adult Populations: A Systematic Review of Prevalence and Associated Clinical Features.” Pain 166, no. 4: 719–731. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Roslyakova, T. , Falco M.‐A., and Gauchet A.. 2020. “An Exploratory Clinical Trial on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as an Adjunct to Psychoeducational Relaxation Therapy for Chronic Pain.” Psychology & Health 36, no. 12: 1403–1426. 10.1080/08870446.2020.1856844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, R. , and Hill S.. 2016. “How to GRADE the Quality of the Evidence (Version 3.0).” Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author‐resources.
- Sanabria‐Mazo, J. P. , Colomer‐Carbonell A., Borràs X., et al. 2023. “Efficacy of Videoconference Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Behavioral Activation Therapy for Depression (BATD) for Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) Plus Comorbid Depressive Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial (IMPACT Study).” Journal of Pain 24, no. 8: 1522–1540. 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sanabria‐Mazo, J. P. , Colomer‐Carbonell A., Fernández‐Vázquez Ó., et al. 2023. “A Systematic Review of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy‐Based Interventions for Comorbid Chronic Pain and Clinically Relevant Psychological Distress.” Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1200685. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1200685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schünemann, H. , Brożek J., Guyatt G., and Oxman A.. (Eds.).2013. “Handbook for Grading the Quality of Evidence and the Strength of Recommendations Using the GRADE Approach.” The GRADE Working Group. https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.
- Scott, W. , Chilcot J., Guildford B., Daly‐Eichenhardt A., and McCracken L. M.. 2018. “Feasibility Randomized‐Controlled Trial of Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Patients With Complex Chronic Pain in the United Kingdom.” European Journal of Pain 22, no. 8: 1473–1484. 10.1002/ejp.1236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scott, W. , Guildford B. J., Badenoch J., et al. 2020. “Feasibility Randomized‐Controlled Trial of Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Painful Peripheral Neuropathy in People Living With HIV: The OPEN Study.” European Journal of Pain 25, no. 7: 1493–1507. 10.1002/ejp.1762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scott, W. , Hann K. E. J., and McCracken L. M.. 2016. “A Comprehensive Examination of Changes in Psychological Flexibility Following Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain.” Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 46, no. 3: 139–148. 10.1007/s10879-016-9328-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shea, B. J. , Reeves B. C., Wells G., et al. 2017. “AMSTAR 2: A Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews That Include Randomised or Non‐Randomised Studies of Healthcare Interventions, or Both.” BMJ 358: j4008. 10.1136/bmj.j4008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Simister, H. D. , Tkachuk G. A., Shay B. L., Vincent N., Pear J. J., and Skrabek R. Q.. 2018. “Randomized Controlled Trial of Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Fibromyalgia.” Journal of Pain 19, no. 7: 741–753. 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Solberg Nes, L. , Børøsund E., Varsi C., et al. 2024. “Living Well With Chronic Pain: A 12‐Month Randomized Controlled Trial Revealing Impact From the Digital Pain Self‐Management Program EPIO.” PAIN Reports 9, no. 4: e1174. 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spencer, S. D. , and Tyndall I.. 2025. “Assessment of Psychological Flexibility and Inflexibility: Conceptual Foundations, Psychometric Evidence, and Clinical Considerations.” In Optimizing ACT: Translating Research Into Practice, 1–40. New Harbinger. [Google Scholar]
- Sterne, J. A. C. , Savović J., Page M. J., et al. 2019. “RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials.” BMJ 366: l4898. 10.1136/bmj.l4898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sterne, J. A. C. , Sutton A. J., Ioannidis J. P. A., et al. 2011. “Recommendations for Examining and Interpreting Funnel Plot Asymmetry in Meta‐Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials.” BMJ 343: d4002. 10.1136/bmj.d4002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taheri, A. A. , Foroughi A. A., Mohammadian Y., et al. 2020. “The Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on Pain Acceptance and Pain Perception in Patients With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Diabetes Therapy 11, no. 8: 1695–1708. 10.1007/s13300-020-00851-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taub, R. , Agmon‐Levin N., Frumer L., Samuel‐Magal I., Glick I., and Horesh D.. 2024. “Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) for Fibromyalgia Patients: The Role of Pain Cognitions as Mechanisms of Change.” Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice 56: 101860. 10.1016/j.ctcp.2024.101860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thieme, K. , Mathys M., and Turk D. C.. 2017. “Evidenced‐Based Guidelines on the Treatment of Fibromyalgia Patients: Are They Consistent and if Not, Why Not? Have Effective Psychological Treatments Been Overlooked?” Journal of Pain 18, no. 7: 747–756. 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thorsell, J. , Cernvall M., Dahl J., von Essen L., and Ljungman G.. 2016. “Acceptance as a Mediator for Change in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Persons With Chronic Pain?” International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 23, no. 1: 21–29. 10.1007/s12529-015-9494-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thorsell, J. , Finnes A., Dahl J., et al. 2011. “A Comparative Study of 2 Manual‐Based Self‐Help Interventions, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Applied Relaxation, for Persons With Chronic Pain.” Clinical Journal of Pain 27, no. 8: 716–723. 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318219a933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Torrijos‐Zarcero, M. , Mediavilla R., Rodríguez‐Vega B., et al. 2021. “Mindful Self‐Compassion Program for Chronic Pain Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” European Journal of Pain 25, no. 4: 930–944. 10.1002/ejp.1734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Trompetter, H. R. , Bohlmeijer E. T., Veehof M. M., and Schreurs K. M. G.. 2015. “Internet‐Based Guided Self‐Help Intervention for Chronic Pain Based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 38, no. 1: 66–80. 10.1007/s10865-014-9579-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Turner, J. A. , Anderson M. L., Balderson B. H., Cook A. J., Sherman K. J., and Cherkin D. C.. 2016. “Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: Similar Effects on Mindfulness, Catastrophizing, Self‐Efficacy, and Acceptance in a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Pain 157, no. 11: 2434–2444. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Varallo, G. , Cattivelli R., Giusti E. M., et al. 2023. “The Efficacy of a Brief Acceptance‐Based Group Intervention in a Sample of Female Patients With Fibromyalgia and Comorbid Obesity: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 41: 1332–1341. 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/7hvaya. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Veehof, M. M. , Oskam M.‐J., Schreurs K. M. G., and Bohlmeijer E. T.. 2011. “Acceptance‐Based Interventions for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Pain 152, no. 3: 533–542. 10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Veehof, M. M. , Trompetter H. R., Bohlmeijer E. T., and Schreurs K. M. G.. 2016. “Acceptance‐ and Mindfulness‐Based Interventions for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 45, no. 1: 5–31. 10.1080/16506073.2015.1098724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Veillette, J. , Martel M.‐E., and Dionne F.. 2019. “A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy–Based Bibliotherapy Intervention Among Adults Living With Chronic Pain.” Canadian Journal of Pain 3, no. 1: 209–225. 10.1080/24740527.2019.1678113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Viechtbauer, W. 2010. “Conducting Meta‐Analyses in R With the Metafor Package.” Journal of Statistical Software 36, no. 3: 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v036.i03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vowles, K. E. , Witkiewitz K., Sowden G., and Ashworth J.. 2014. “Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: Evidence of Mediation and Clinically Significant Change Following an Abbreviated Interdisciplinary Program of Rehabilitation.” Journal of Pain 15, no. 1: 101–113. 10.1016/j.jpain.2013.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wan, X. , Wang W., Liu J., and Tong T.. 2014. “Estimating the Sample Mean and Standard Deviation From the Sample Size, Median, Range and/or Interquartile Range.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 14, no. 1: 135. 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wetherell, J. L. , Afari N., Rutledge T., et al. 2011. “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Cognitive‐Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain.” Pain 152, no. 9: 2098–2107. 10.1016/j.pain.2011.05.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wicksell, R. K. , Ahlqvist J., Bring A., Melin L., and Olsson G. L.. 2008. “Can Exposure and Acceptance Strategies Improve Functioning and Life Satisfaction in People With Chronic Pain and Whiplash‐Associated Disorders (WAD)? A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 37, no. 3: 169–182. 10.1080/16506070802078970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wicksell, R. K. , Kemani M., Jensen K., et al. 2013. “Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” European Journal of Pain 17, no. 4: 599–611. 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00224.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wicksell, R. K. , Olsson G. L., and Hayes S. C.. 2010. “Psychological Flexibility as a Mediator of Improvement in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Patients With Chronic Pain Following Whiplash.” European Journal of Pain 14, no. 10: 1059‐e1. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams, A. C. C. , Fisher E., Hearn L., and Eccleston C.. 2020. “Psychological Therapies for the Management of Chronic Pain (Excluding Headache) in Adults.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 8, no. 8: CD007407. 10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zgierska, A. E. , Burzinski C. A., Cox J., et al. 2016. “Mindfulness Meditation and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Intervention Reduces Pain Severity and Sensitivity in Opioid‐Treated Chronic Low Back Pain: Pilot Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Pain Medicine 17, no. 10: 1865–1881. 10.1093/pm/pnw006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data S1: References for studies included in the review.
Data S2: Characteristics of the intervention and control conditions of the included RCTs.
Data S3: Eggers' test and funnel plots.
Table S1: Search strategy.
Table S2: Characteristics of excluded studies.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available at: https://osf.io/kb4xr.