AzTrials
AzTrials

Chronic PainNCT07067619

Pain Acceptance Training in Patients Experiencing Emotional Distress and Somatic Symptoms: Examination of Dialectical Thinking as a Mediating Factor

A study testing Pain-acceptance intervention in people with Chronic Pain and Somatic Pain, run by University of Haifa at 2 sites in Israel.

Recruiting

Looking for participants now. Contact the study team or a site below to ask about taking part.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Somatic symptoms, including physical pain, are highly prevalent among mental health patients. Current treatments have limited effectiveness for these symptoms, primarily because of patients' diminished introspective capacity and lack of emotional awareness. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 70 years
What is being tested?
Pain-acceptance intervention
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
100 participants
Where
2 sitesIsrael
Study dates
1 Dec 2024to Dec 2026
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 70 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Men and Women
  • Aged 18-70
  • Able to provide a signed informed consent
  • Experiencing significant pain symptoms that interfere with daily-life functioning
  • Experiencing significant emotional distress symptoms

Who cannot join

  • Patients under the age of 18 and/or diagnosed with one or more of the following diagnoses will be excluded from participation in the study:
  • Patients rating their average pain in the last week and in the last month as less than 3 in a 0-10 numerical rating scale (i.e. NPS)
  • Patients rating their emotional distress levels as less than 25 in a 10-50 numerical rating scale (i.e. Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10])
  • Patients diagnosed with psychotic disorders and/or suffering from psychotic symptoms.
  • Patients diagnosed with Autism Spectrum disorder.
  • Patients diagnosed with Intellectual disability.
Show all 11Show fewer
  • Patients diagnosed with eating disorders.
  • Patients with Immediate suicidal risk.
  • Patients who initiated a new drug and/or psychotherapy treatment within the last month.
  • Pregnant women.
  • Patients currently serving in the IDF.

Trial locations and contacts

2 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Einav Gozansky contact

einavgoz@gmail.com

Israel2 sites, 2 recruiting
  • Psychiatric Division, Rambam Health Care Campus

    Haifa, 3109601

    Shulamit Grinapol, Ph.D., 04-7771718, s_grinapol@rambam.health.gov.il

    Shulamit Grinapol

    Recruiting
  • University of Haifa

    Haifa, 3498838

    Hadas Okon-Singer, +972-4-8249671, hadasos@psy.haifa.ac.il

    Einav Gozansky

    Recruiting

Other trials in Israel

About this study

Somatic symptoms, including physical pain, are highly prevalent among mental health patients. Current treatments have limited effectiveness for these symptoms, primarily because of patients' diminished introspective capacity and lack of emotional awareness. The current study proposes pain acceptance training as a new intervention. This intervention relies on the tenets of dialectical thinking, particularly on maintaining a dialectic perspective - at once acknowledging both the desire to end the pain and the ability to accept it as it is. We aim to examine the following: (1) the efficacy of pain acceptance training in the alleviation of somatic pain in patients with somatic symptoms; (2) the role of dialectical thinking as a mediator of pain acceptance training efficacy.

Read the detailed description

Somatic symptom disorders are among the most common mental disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 5-7% in the general population1. Somatic disorders are characterized by persistent, unexplained physical symptoms, such as pain and gastrointestinal and cardiovascular symptoms, which cause significant impairments to regular functioning and high burden due to multiple medical consultations. A substantial proportion of patients also experience comorbid depression and anxiety.

Growing evidence indicates that specific maladaptive psychological factors (e.g., catastrophizing, emotion regulation problems, and negative physical self-concept) play a substantial role in causing and sustaining somatic symptoms. Therefore, psychological treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy are the first line of treatment6. Still, individuals with somatic symptoms exhibit limited responsiveness to conventional psychotherapeutic approaches.

To remedy this, one possible approach is Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), which aims to enhance dialectical thinking, a cognitive process that involves the ability to hold and reconcile opposing ideas or viewpoints and reflect on them curiously. Few studies have shown that increases in dialectical thinking during psychological treatment have positive effects on attention, coping flexibility, and self-processing.

A limited number of studies have examined the effects of DBT treatment among patients with somatic symptoms. One initial study exploring the effects of DBT in individuals suffering from somatic symptoms reported reduced somatization in patients diagnosed with borderline disorder, through an increase in emotional acceptance.

Though promising, DBT is a long-term, in-person intervention that must be carried out by trained professionals and is, therefore, resource-intensive and inaccessible to many people. Therefore, we propose an alternative related intervention for individuals experiencing somatic symptoms, namely Pain-Acceptance Training. Similar to DBT, the Pain-Acceptance Training targets core mechanisms related to pain processing and modulation.

CURRENT INTERVENTION

Pain-acceptance training is based on dialectical thinking, particularly in maintaining a dialectic perspective, on the suffering caused by the pain - simultaneously wishing it to end and accepting it. Acceptance-based pain interventions attempt to teach patients to experience their emotions, pains, and bodily sensations more fully and without avoidance, and to notice fully the presence of thoughts without following, resisting, believing, or disbelieving them. Accepting thoughts and feelings impedes the control these exert over behavioral tendencies and limits their impact on pursuing personal goals. Thus, even though acceptance-based strategies do not aim at pain reduction, various studies have shown that these strategies can alter the pain experience and therefore may be considered regulation strategies. This training method is also easily implemented, and can be imparted to participants both online and in person. Research shows that short trainings in pain acceptance regulation strategies increase pain tolerance, enhance recovery from pain, lower pain anxiety, distress ratings, and negative emotions related to pain, and facilitate better overall functioning despite the pain.

Prior Clinical Experience

In our recent randomized controlled single-session trial of pain-acceptance training that was conducted at the University of Haifa, healthy individuals showed reduced sensitivity to suprathreshold pain and reported an increase in pain threshold. This increase correlated with an increase in the vagal tone reactivity to pain, suggesting that the training modulates pain via the antinociceptive effect of the vagus nerve. Crucially and even more importantly, the reduction in pain sensitivity and increase in pain threshold were maintained for a month following the training, thus showing long long-lasting impact on pain perception. Furthermore, this training resulted in a decrease in pain catastrophizing levels one month later, suggesting that participants had better emotional capacities for dealing with pain.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES \& SIGNIFICANCE

As demonstrated, pain acceptance training showed promising results in altering the pain perception of healthy participants. The current study aims at translating these outcomes to a clinical setting; to examine a novel form of acceptance-training for pain relief in psychiatric patients suffering from somatic symptoms. We hypothesize that pain intensity, functional disability, and negative affect will decrease as a result of acceptance training, and that these changes will be mediated by an increase in patients' dialectical thinking abilities.

STUDY ENDPOINTS / OUTCOMES

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine pain acceptance training in psychiatric patients with somatic symptoms. To determine the efficacy of the training, we will utilize different pain outcome measures, and assess emotional and cognitive correlates of the change. As such, we believe this study will provide preliminary data that will serve as a basis for further randomized control trials examining the clinical implications of acceptance based training compared to other standard pain-treatment methods, and exploring the mechanisms underlying pain acceptance training for somatic symptoms relief.

Our primary training outcome measures will be pain-related, and will be conducted in three phases: Baseline, End of Intervention Assessments, and Follow-up Assessments. We expect that following two-week of acceptance training, patients will feel lower pain intensity and will show better abilities to cope with their pain. These improvements are expected to be maintained over time, and we will observe this in the follow up assessments.

These measures include pain intensity assessment, assessment of the degree of widespread body pain, pain catastrophizing levels and pain self-efficacy believes, as well as actual pain coping measurement of cold pain threshold, and cold pain tolerance.

The secondary training measures will include emotional state measures, dialectical thinking measures, and attention bias for pain. Demographic and medical records variables will serve as covariates for evaluating individual factors affecting training efficacy.

Being tested
Pain-acceptance intervention
Keywords
Chronic pain, Somatic pain, Pain Acceptance, Intervention, Training, Experimental pain
Medical subject headings
Chronic Pain, Nociceptive Pain

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Pain-acceptance interventionBehavioural

    The intervention start with a conversation and inquiry about the participant's pain while continuously validating his experience and creating a shared understanding of their struggles and difficulties due to the pain.

    Next, the experimenter explain the relations between distress, pain and suffering, emphasizing that in many cases trying to control our pain, emotions and thoughts leads us to undesirable results through emotional avoidance, anger and escape. This explanation will be accompanied with commonly used metaphors to enhance participants' understanding. Afterwards, participants are familiarized with the strategy of "emotional acceptance of pain". The strategy will be comprehensively explained and participants will practice it with the experimenter twice: Firstly, by practicing with the mental exercise of "STOP" (i.e. Stop, Take a step back, Observe, Procced Mindfully); Secondly by practicing the pain acceptance strategy while feeling moderate pain, and discuss their experience.

Study groups in NCT07067619
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Pain-acceptance intervention groupExperimentalPatients in the pain-acceptance group will undergo a battery of baseline assessments in the first session, and receive a two-week intervention. First, they receive an explanation of pain acceptance, and practice it with the experimenter through discussion and metaphors, and do two exercises: STOP and a cold-pressor task. Next, they conduct two weeks of home practice. At home, they are asked to use the pain-acceptance strategy whenever they feel pain. After one week, the experimenter will conduct a short video call with the patient, to discuss the progress and the difficulties that arise in using the acceptance training. The experimenter also supports them by phone and video call as needed. Further, they complete a brief survey on pain, disability, strategy use, and ease on a daily base. After two weeks, they return for a follow-up assessment including questionnaires, cognitive tasks, and the cold-pressor test. Two weeks later they complete an online follow-up survey.
Receives: Behavioral: Pain-acceptance intervention
treatment-as-usual groupNo interventionPatients in the treatment-as-usual group will first complete baseline assessments, including questionnaires, a cognitive task, and the Cold Pressor Task. Following this, they will engage in a brief structured conversation with the experimenter to provide an interaction comparable to that of the intervention group. For the next two weeks, participants will complete daily online surveys delivered each evening via text message, assessing pain severity and functional disability experienced that day. At the end of the first week, they will also have a video call with the experimenter to discuss their feelings. After two weeks, participants will return for a second assessment session, after which they will be offered the opportunity to receive the pain-acceptance intervention. Finally, two weeks after this session, they will complete the same battery of questionnaires online as administered previously.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Chronic pain levels

    Chronic pain levels will be measured by The BPI-SF is a validated and widely recommended tool for assessing pain severity and pain-related interference in chronic pain patients. It measures pain severity at its worst, least, average, and current level over the past week on a 0-10 scale, with 0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain imaginable. It also evaluates interference across seven domains (general activity, walking, work, mood, relations, sleep, and enjoyment of life), each scored 0-10, where 0 = no interference and 10 = complete interference. Scores can be averaged into the Pain Severity Index and Pain Interference Index. The BPI-SF is responsive to changes in pain over time.

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

  2. Pain self-efficacy

    Measured by the Pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ). The PSEQ assesses the strength of a person's confidence in their ability to function, despite their pain. Patients are asked to rate how confident they are so that they can do each of the 10 activities or functions at present, despite their pain, by selecting a number on a seven-point scale, where zero equals 'not at all confident' and six equals 'completely confident'. Scores on the PSEQ may range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating stronger self-efficacy beliefs. Good reliability and validity of the PSEQ has been reported. The test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the PSEQ in two different studies with chronic pain patients were reported as 0.79 and 0.92, respectively.

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

Secondary outcomes (10)
  1. Depression levels

    Measured by using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). A self-report questionnaire for adults, the purpose of which is to examine the presence and severity of clinical depression23. The questionnaire includes 9 items that are a list of major depressive symptoms, according to the DSM. For each item, the examinee is asked to estimate how often he was bothered by the statement described in the item during the last two weeks, on a 4-point Likert scale of 3 (0 - not at all, 3 - almost every day). In addition, the examinee was asked how much the problems he reported made it difficult for him to do his job, take care of things at home or get along with others. This last item is important and significant to assess the degree of distress caused to a person by his symptoms, and the score in it is closely related to the degree of the person's quality of life.

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

  2. Anxiety levels

    Measured by using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale (GAD-7). A self-report questionnaire with 7 items describing anxiety symptoms. In this questionnaire, the participant is asked to describe how well each statement describes his situation in the past two weeks, on a 4-point Likert scale (0 - not at all, 3 - almost every day). The questionnaire is acceptable for use for research and clinical purposes to detect anxiety symptoms in general, and general anxiety symptoms in particular, both in the general population and in clinical populations. The questionnaire has good psychometric properties including high internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha index = 0.89), and high validity indices.

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

  3. Dichotomous Thinking

    Measured by using the Dichotomous Thinking Inventory (DTI), a self-report measure used to assess a black-and-white cognitive thinking style or worldview. The questionnaire assesses an individual's dichotomous thinking style in a general setting by measuring the degree of positive view of dichotomy, such as dichotomous thinking being better than other thinking styles and dichotomy being consequent, deserved, and worthy. The DTI has 15 items scored on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 = disagree strongly to 6 = agree strongly. The DTI has 3 components: preference for dichotomy, dichotomous beliefs, and profit-and-loss thinking.

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

  4. Daily pain ratings and pain disruption

    Measured by evaluating daily pain ratings in the two weeks during the intervention period, via online questionnaire, on a scale ranging from 0 -not pain at all, to 100 - maximum pain they can imagine. Further, evaluating who much the pain interfered with daily activities, on a scale ranging from 0 - not at all, to 100 - interfered with all daily tasks.

    Measured: Measured by evaluating daily pain ratings in the two weeks of the intervention period

  5. Perceived improvement following the intervention

    Measured by Patient's global impression of change (PGIC) scale. Patients rate their improvement on a seven-point scale, where 0 equals "very much worse" and 6 equals "very much improved". This scale will be asked only in the last session, at the end of the intervention period. Patients themselves make a subjective judgment about the meaning of the change to them following treatment, this scale is often taken as the external criterion or "gold standard" of clinically important change. However, this method, by itself, does not indicate what has improved.

    Measured: Measured at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

  6. Pain catastrophizing

    Measured by using the Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS). The PCS contains 13 items that measure catastrophic thoughts about pain in both clinical and non-clinical samples. Participants reflect on past painful experiences and indicate on a 5-point scale ranging from zero ("not at all") to four ("always") the degree to which they experience each of the 13 thoughts or feelings during the experience of a pain (i.e. "When I'm in pain it's terrible and I think it's never going to get any better"). Research has shown that the PCS is valid and reliable

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

  7. Dialectical thinking

    Measured by the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS), a validated and reliable measure that assesses dialectical self-esteem as related to self-perception. The DSS is a 32-item instrument using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree to measure the perception of dialecticism. Sixteen items describe scenarios that are inconsistent with naive dialecticism which are reverse-scored to determine a dialectical self-esteem rating, with high scores representing greater degrees of dialecticism (i.e. individuals who are "more dialectically oriented").

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

  8. Experimental pain threshold and tolerance

    Measured by using the Cold Pressor Task (CPT), which consists tub containing cold water. Water's temperature will be kept at 10-12°C, to create a moderate pain sensation. This is a usual temperature range when studying pain, and based on our vast experience with this task it appropriate for the present experiment. Participants will be seated in a chair adjacent to the container and asked to immerse their non-dominant hand into the tab for as long as they feel able to do so. Maximum duration of immersion will be five minutes.

    The outcome measure will be pain threshold, which indicates the number of seconds from immersion in the tub that the participant first reported feeling pain. Threshold is a behavioral index of hypervigilance towards the pain experienced in the cold pressure. The second outcome measure will be pain tolerance, which indicates the number of seconds from immersion in the tank that the participant can tolerate the pain

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, and at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention.

  9. Attention bias to pain-related images

    Measured by the a computerized version of the emotional modification of the perceptual load paradigm. In this task, participants are required to indicate whether a target letter (X or N) appears on the screen, by responding to the corresponding letter on the keyboard.

    The task contains two perceptual load conditions, low and high, which are determined by the number of distracting letters appearing alongside the target letter. In the low load condition, one distracting letter appears on the screen alongside the target letter, whereas in the high load condition, four distracting letters appear on the screen together with the target letter. The distracting letters are chosen randomly from the letters K, H, V, Z, or W. The target and distracting letters appear randomly in six possible locations that create an imaginary circle at the center of the screen. The distracting pictures can be either neutral or pain-related one.

    Measured: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.

  10. Daily anxiety, distress and mood

    Measured by evaluating daily anxiety, distress and mood ratings in the two weeks during the intervention period, via online questionnaires, asking how much the participants felt one of these feeling today on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 100 (all the time).

    Measured: Measured by evaluating daily pain ratings in the two weeks of the intervention period

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted16 Jul 2025
  2. Study start1 Dec 2024
  3. Primary completionDec 2026 (estimated)
  4. Study completionDec 2026 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
100 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07067619
Sponsor's protocol ID
0062-24
Status last verified
Jul 2025
First submitted
1 Jul 2025
Last updated
4 May 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Pain-acceptance intervention in people with Chronic Pain and Somatic Pain, run by University of Haifa at 2 sites in Israel.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 11 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 2 sites in Israel. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Sulamit Grinapol (+972 047771718, s_grinapol@rambam.health.gov.il), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Chronic pain levels (time frame: Measured at the baseline assessment session, at the evaluation session at the end of the two-weeks intervention, and after two weeks follow-up.). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 May 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in