CClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07143396Updated Sep 8, 2025

Evaluation of a Mind-Body Based Approach for Chronic Pain Treatment

An interventional study of Mind-body mobile application and guided movement in Chronic Pain, Migraine and Chronic Pain Syndrome, sponsored by University of the Fraser Valley. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 19 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-09-08.

Sponsored by University of the Fraser Valley · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Nov 2025, 11 months ago, but the record still lists the study as not yet recruiting.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
100
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
19 Years to 75 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The investigators are evaluating the effects of a mind-body mobile application, in combination with a guided movement program, on the experience of chronic pain. Participants meeting the criteria for chronic/persistent pain (confirmed via self-report) will complete an online baseline questionnaire. Eligible participants will take part in an intervention that involves use of a 6-week free trial of a mind-body focused mobile application in combination with virtual asynchronous audio-guided somatic education sessions (gentle movement). External data from a usual care control arm and a mobile-app-only arm from a previous study by the same research team, National Clinical Trials (NCT) registry number NCT05090683, will be used for comparison with the current combined intervention. All participants will complete online surveys at the start of the study and after 6 weeks to measure pain intensity and interference (primary outcomes), mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, stress), pain-related thoughts (pain catastrophizing), quality of life, and fear of movement (secondary outcomes). From weeks 2 to 6, participants will fill out weekly surveys to track how often they engage with each: the somatic education (gentle movement) program and the mobile app. Participants will also complete a follow-up survey at 12 weeks (6 weeks post-intervention conclusion).

Read the detailed description

See protocol for more details. (submitted at time of registration)

02

Conditions studied

  • Chronic Pain
  • Migraine
  • Chronic Pain Syndrome

Keywords

  • mind-body
  • mobile application
  • chronic pain
  • guided movement
  • Somatic Education
03

In context

Chronic Pain

2,930 studies on the registry are indexed under Chronic Pain; 701 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 100 is above the median of 60 across 2,161 interventional studies indexed under Chronic Pain.

Browse Chronic Pain studies →

Lead sponsor

University of the Fraser Valley is the lead sponsor of 5 studies on the registry; 4 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
19 Years to 75 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Participants aged 19 to 75 years with chronic pain
  • Chronic pain is defined as having non-malignant chronic or persistent pain for at least 6 months.
  • Participants must experience pain at least half the days in the last 6 months.
  • Pain can include bodily pain or head (migraine) pain
  • Participants must have access to an electronic device
  • Participants must be willing to engage in weekly somatic education activities

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Individuals reporting a cognitive impairment that can interfere with completing questionnaires and using a mobile application.
  • Individuals reporting substance use disorder (within the last 6 months).
  • Individuals reporting any of the following medical conditions: metastatic cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, scleroderma, polymyositis.
  • Individuals with previous experience with the mind-body app under study (Note: use of "Calm" or another meditation-only app is not an exclusion).
  • Individuals with current regular (at least once a week) engagement with a somatic movement program (e.g., Feldenkrais, Hanna Somatics, Somatic Yoga, Tai Chi, Pilates)
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
100 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Mind-body mobile application and guided movement

    Participants are asked to engage (minimum 4x per week) with a user-guided mobile application (app) that employs mind-body techniques including expressive writing, meditation, cognitive behavioural therapy, and pain education. The app also includes access to podcasts that focus on pain counselling and pain education. Participants are also asked to follow (3x per week) an audio-guided somatic education program (light-intensity graded movement).

    Behavioral: Mind-body mobile application and guided movement

Interventions

  • BehavioralMind-body mobile application and guided movement

    Self-directed: The study team recommends daily use of the mobile app for 6 weeks, with a minimum of 4 times per week, and engagement with the somatic education program at least 3 times per week for 6 weeks. Frequency of app usage and somatic education engagement will be monitored via weekly surveys.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in Brief Pain Inventory-short form (BPI-SF) Pain Severity

    Measures self reported pain severity (over past 24 hours). BPI Pain Severity: single item scale within larger Brief Pain Inventory tool that asses pain "average" pain severity. Item scale ranges from 0 to 10. 0 = "no pain", 10 = "pain as bad as you can imagine". Higher scores indicate worse outcome (pain severity), lower scores indicate better outcome. Item range = (0,10).

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks.

  2. Change in Brief Pain Inventory-short form (BPI-SF) Pain Interference

    Item 9 on the BPI measures interference with daily living. There are 7 items (reflecting seven daily activities) and each is scored on 11-point scales from 0 = "does not interfere" to 10 = "completely interferes" for interference with activities of daily living. Pain interference score is calculated as an average of the 7 items, with a range from 0 to 10. Higher scores represent worse outcomes (higher interference).

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity short form 3a

    Measures self reported pain intensity over the past 7 days "on average" and "at its worst" along with an item to assess pain intensity "now". The three items are added together to produce a raw score which can be converted to a t-score. Each item uses 5-pt Likert scale from 1 = "had no pain" to 5 = "very severe". Raw scores range from 3 to 15. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks

  2. Change in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference short form 8a

    Measures self reported pain interference in daily activities (over 7 days). 8 items are added together for a raw score, which can then be converted to a t-score. Each item uses 5-pt Likert scale from 1 = "not at all" to 5 = "very much" (regarding pain interference). Raw scores range from 8 to 40. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks

  3. Change in Pain Catastrophizing Questionnaire (PCS)

    Measures thoughts and perceptions of pain, 13 items, scored using 5-pt Likert scale 0 = "not at all" to 4 = "all the time". Scores are the sum of all items. min score = 0; max score = 52. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 weeks

  4. Change in Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21)

    Measures self reported emotional states, three subscales: depression, anxiety, stress (each 7 items) Items scored on 4-point Likert scale: 0 = "did not apply to me at all" to 3 = "applied to me very much or most of the time". Scores for each subscale are summed. Scores are then multiplied by 2 to calculate final score for each subscale. Scale ranges for each subscale is from 0 to 42 (after doubling of scores). Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 weeks

  5. Change in Quality of Life Short Form 12 (SF-12) Physical Component Score

    Measures self-reported impact of health on daily life. The SF-12 is a brief version of the SF-36 and contains 12 items measured using a variety of Likert scales and dichotomous yes/no scales, with each item response assigned a numerical weight. The Physical Component Score (PCS) is a summary score that is reported as a z-score. Scores are calculated using regression weights and constants that have been derived from a U.S. population. Each item response choice category is coded as an indicator variable (scored 1 / 0). Indicator variables are weighted using regression coefficients from the US population for the PCS. The weighted scores across all items are then summed and are added to a constant (regression intercept) to obtain a summary score. Score ranges 0 to 100. Normalized score such that component scales have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 in the general population. Lower scores indicate worse outcomes. Higher scores indicate improved physical health.

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 weeks

  6. Change in Quality of Life Short Form 12 (SF-12) Mental Component Score

    Measures self-reported impact of health on daily life. The SF-12 is a brief version of the SF-36 and contains 12 items measured using a variety of Likert scales and dichotomous yes/no scales, with each item response assigned a numerical weight. The Mental Component Score (MCS) is a summary score that is reported as a z-score. Scores are calculated using regression weights and constants that have been derived from a U.S. population. Each item response choice category is coded as an indicator variable (scored 1 / 0). Indicator variables are weighted using regression coefficients from the US population for the MCS. The weighted scores across all items are then summed and are added to a constant (regression intercept) to obtain a summary score. Score ranges 0 to 100. Normalized score such that component scales have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 in the general population. Lower scores indicate worse outcomes. Higher scores indicate improved mental health.

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 weeks

  7. Change in Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia Questionnaire (TSK)

    Measured self-reported kinesiophobia assessing fear of movement or re-injury due to pain. Each item rated on a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree." Total score range = (11, 44). Higher scores indicate greater fear of movement and worse outcomes.

    Time frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 weeks

  8. Change in Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity Composite Score

    A composite score derived from the average of four items that assesses at its "worst", "least", "average" over the past 24 hours, along with "now". Item scales range from 0 to 10. 0 = "no pain", 10 = "pain as bad as you can imagine". Higher scores indicate worse outcome, lower scores indicate better outcome. Item range = (0,10).

    Time frame: baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks

  9. Change in Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity (from baseline to 12 weeks)

    Note: This is a secondary outcome (change from 0 to 6 weeks is a primary outcome). Measures self reported pain severity and pain interference (over past 24 hours). BPI Pain Severity: single item scale within larger Brief Pain Inventory tool that inquires about "average" pain severity over the past 24 hours. Item scale ranges from 0 to 10. 0 = "no pain", 10 = "pain as bad as you can imagine". Higher scores indicate worse outcome, lower scores indicate better outcome. Item range = (0,10).

    Time frame: baseline, 12 weeks

  10. Change in Brief Pain Inventory Interference (from baseline to 12 weeks)

    Note: This is a secondary outcome (change from 0 to 6 weeks is a primary outcome). Measures self reported pain interference (over past 24 hours). BPI Pain Interference: Item 9 on BPI measures interference with daily living. There are 7 items embedded within and each is scored on 11-point scales from 0 = "does not interfere" to 10 = "completely interferes" for interference with activities of daily living. Pain interference score is calculated as an average of the 7 items, with a range from 0 to 10. Higher scores represent worse outcomes.

    Time frame: baseline, 12 weeks

07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of the Fraser Valley
    Chilliwack, British Columbia V2R0N3, Canada
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Roelofs J, Goubert L, Peters ML, Vlaeyen JW, Crombez G. The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: further examination of psychometric properties in patients with chronic low back pain and fibromyalgia. Eur J Pain. 2004 Oct;8(5):495-502. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.11.016. PubMed 15324781 ↗
  • Kean J, Monahan PO, Kroenke K, Wu J, Yu Z, Stump TE, Krebs EE. Comparative Responsiveness of the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Forms, Brief Pain Inventory, PEG, and SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale. Med Care. 2016 Apr;54(4):414-21. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000497. PubMed 26807536 ↗
  • Osman A, Barrios FX, Kopper BA, Hauptmann W, Jones J, O'Neill E. Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. J Behav Med. 1997 Dec;20(6):589-605. doi: 10.1023/a:1025570508954. PubMed 9429990 ↗
  • Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994 Mar;23(2):129-38. PubMed 8080219 ↗
  • Gatchel RJ, Peng YB, Peters ML, Fuchs PN, Turk DC. The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions. Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):581-624. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.581. PubMed 17592957 ↗
  • Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. PubMed 8628042 ↗
  • Devan H, Farmery D, Peebles L, Grainger R. Evaluation of Self-Management Support Functions in Apps for People With Persistent Pain: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 12;7(2):e13080. doi: 10.2196/13080. PubMed 30747715 ↗
  • Schopflocher D, Taenzer P, Jovey R. The prevalence of chronic pain in Canada. Pain Res Manag. 2011 Nov-Dec;16(6):445-50. doi: 10.1155/2011/876306. PubMed 22184555 ↗
  • Borm GF, Fransen J, Lemmens WA. A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;60(12):1234-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.02.006. Epub 2007 Jun 6. PubMed 17998077 ↗
  • Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, Cohen M, Evers S, Finnerup NB, First MB, Giamberardino MA, Kaasa S, Kosek E, Lavand'homme P, Nicholas M, Perrot S, Scholz J, Schug S, Smith BH, Svensson P, Vlaeyen JWS, Wang SJ. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain. 2015 Jun;156(6):1003-1007. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000160. No abstract available. PubMed 25844555 ↗
  • Morone NE, Greco CM. Mind-body interventions for chronic pain in older adults: a structured review. Pain Med. 2007 May-Jun;8(4):359-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00312.x. PubMed 17610459 ↗
  • Pfeifer AC, Uddin R, Schroder-Pfeifer P, Holl F, Swoboda W, Schiltenwolf M. Mobile Application-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness. J Clin Med. 2020 Nov 5;9(11):3557. doi: 10.3390/jcm9113557. PubMed 33167300 ↗
  • Ashar YK, Gordon A, Schubiner H, Uipi C, Knight K, Anderson Z, Carlisle J, Polisky L, Geuter S, Flood TF, Kragel PA, Dimidjian S, Lumley MA, Wager TD. Effect of Pain Reprocessing Therapy vs Placebo and Usual Care for Patients With Chronic Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 Jan 1;79(1):13-23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2669. PubMed 34586357 ↗
  • Thomson CJ, Pahl H, Giles LV. Randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a multimodal mobile application for the treatment of chronic pain. Can J Pain. 2024 Aug 19;8(1):2352399. doi: 10.1080/24740527.2024.2352399. eCollection 2024. PubMed 39175941 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Aug 11, 2025

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 8, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07143396
Lead sponsor
University of the Fraser Valley
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 27, 2025
Start date
Oct 2025 (estimated)
Primary completion
Nov 2025 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 8, 2025

Study contacts

Cynthia J Thomson, PhD
Contact
cynthia.thomson@ufv.ca
604-792-0025 ext. 2518
Cynthia J Thomson, PhD
principal investigator · University of the Fraser Valley

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Aug 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion