Pilot study evaluates a tailored self-management intervention for chronic pain in cirrhosis, indicating acceptability and improved outcomes.
Background: Chronic pain is common and uniquely challenging to manage in people with cirrhosis. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a tailored pain self-management (PSM) intervention for people with cirrhosis and chronic pain. Methods: This single-arm, single-site pilot study recruited patients with a diagnosis of cirrhosis and chronic pain to a virtual, health coach–led, modular PSM intervention. After 6 weekly one-on-one sessions, patients were invited to attend 6 weekly group sessions. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks (end of intervention), and 24 weeks (maintenance). The primary outcomes were acceptability, defined by a 4/5 rating on the Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire, and feasibility, defined as the ability to retain patients in 80% of the intervention sessions. Secondary outcomes of pain and function were measured using the Pain intensity, Enjoyment of life, and General activity (PEG) scales, and a rating of percent improvement with the intervention. Results: Among 21 participants who started the intervention, 16 (76%) attended ≥80% of sessions. Acceptability thresholds were met at all time points. On a scale of 0–100, where 30 is considered to be a meaningful change, participants rated their improvement in pain symptoms an average of 50 ± 25. The average PEG score decreased from 6.1 at baseline to 5.3 at 24 weeks. Participants reported increases in PSM behaviors, including cognitive and stress-reduction methods, physical activity, healthy sleep behaviors, and changes in diet. Conclusions: This pilot identified a reduction in pain and an increase in PSM activities and demonstrated the acceptability of a health coach–led PSM intervention for adults with chronic pain and cirrhosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rogal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: