Forum Postings Cognitive behavior therapy for chronic pain is effective, but for whom?

  • Uncategorized

ForumPostings: Cognitive behavior therapy for chronic pain is effective,but for whom?



Samplingrefers to a process applied by researchers in selecting arepresentative group from the population under investigation. Thegroup of people taking part in the research may be described as theparticipants. Most importantly, sampling as applied in researchserves the purpose of learning about large groups of people havingsomething in common, and the group is called the target population.One challenge that might occur when selecting the sample from atarget population entails sampling bias. It describes the situationswhere the sample fails to reflect the characteristics of the targetpopulation (Thorn et al. 2013). Nevertheless, the sampling methodemployed in the article entails random sampling where each of theparticipants had an equal chance of being selected. The randomizationin the sample involved patients with osteoarthritis (OA) into similarnumbers and treated through two conditions (Thorn et al. 2013). Onetreatment condition includes Pain Coping Skills Training (PCST) wherepatients receive teachings on the promotion the utilization ofcognitive behavioral pain management coping skills. On the otherhand, it excludes patients undergoing the usual care/controlcondition. The ethical administration of the sample involvesequipping the participants with information regarding the study whiledoctors also informed the members what the study entailed (Thorn etal. 2013).


Ethicalmanagement of the members taking part in an investigation involvesthe use of phrases describing the system of ethical protections thatthe medical research have created to protect the rights of theirresearch participants. One of these phrases entails the principle ofvoluntary participation which inhibits coercion of members intotaking part in the study (Sirriyeh et al. 2011). In the studyconducted on patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis, theadvertisements made called upon willing patients to take part in theevaluation of the instruments designed to deal with the disorder.Those willing patients were required to enquire from the doctors formore information as well as the assessment of their eligibility tothe study (Sirriyeh et al. 2011). These elements indicate that thepatients willing to participate in the study obtained fullinformation about the procedures and risks involved. Nevertheless,their willingness to proceed with the study suggests that thepatients gave their informed consent on the condition that they wouldbe confidential and anonymous.


Thedesignation of practical tools used in a study occurs through the useof validity and reliability. The validity of the tools refers to theprocess through which the instruments used to collect data areassessed for dependability. The assessment of these tools focuses ona variety of considerations that determine how they may be applied(Sirriyeh et al. 2011). The first factor entails how long the studywill take to administer, whether the directions are clear, theexistence of equivalent forms and the problems reported by others whoused it. Nevertheless, the study conducted on osteoarthritis ensureddependability through determining whether the participants feltconfident about the training (Sirriyeh et al. 2011). It also assessedwhether the patients would recommend training others where theresults of the study were based on the credibility/expectationquestionnaire. The overall score for the measure indicated goodinternal consistency. Additionally, the validity of the studyemanates from the various self-report questionnaires used inmeasuring cognitive, affective and somatic aspects of depressed mood(Sirriyeh et al. 2011). These instruments portray the validation ofthe tools in that they measure the dependability of the tools inaccurately assessing the objectives of the study. The validationindicates strength in that some of the outcomes obtained indicate ahigh level of reliability in the tools used.


Experimentaldesigns involve randomly assigned groups where every participant getsan equal opportunity of being selected in the experimental group. Onthe other hand, quasi-experimental designs exclude the randomselection of designated group, and the control and treatment groupsdiffer regarding the experimental treatment received. NonexperimentalDesigns describe the studies where the research are limited to aparticular type of participant and only have access to a certaingroup of members (Thorn et al. 2013). The collection of members inthese designs involves a group that should not be divided and thuslimits the researcher from randomly assigning them. In the studyconducted on osteoarthritis patients, the experimental designfacilitates in the random assignment of the participants intotreatment and control groups (Thorn et al. 2013). The strengths inusing the design entail derivation of appropriate hypotheses based onthe control that aligns the experimental manipulation with theobtained results. Contrastingly, the use of experimental designshinders the researchers from determining the unknown factors in theparticipants.


Sirriyeh,&nbspR.,Lawton,&nbspR., Gardner,&nbspP., &amp Armitage,&nbspG. (2011).Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development andevaluation of a new tool.&nbspJournalof Evaluation in Clinical Practice,&nbsp18(4),746-752. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01662.x

Thorn,&nbspJ.,Noble,&nbspS., Moore,&nbspT., &amp Hollingworth,&nbspW. (2013).Empirical Evidence for the Validity and Reliability of Resource-UseMeasures Based on Patient Recall: A Systematic Review.&nbspValuein Health,&nbsp16(7),A579-A580. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.1581

Close Menu