Effectiveness of pain coping skills training on pain, physical function, and psychological outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of pain coping skills training in pain, function, and psychological outcomes for patients with osteoarthritis, compared to the control group; and to compare the effectiveness of pain coping skills training between the intervention involving and without involving exercise. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PEDro, Clinical Trials, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 30 September 2020). REVIEW METHODS: To calculate the results, we used standardized mean difference, and mean difference for the outcomes of continuous variables, risk difference for the risk of adverse events. Heterogeneity was identified with I2 test, and publication bias was identified with Egger's test. RESULTS: A total of 1195 patients with osteoarthritis underwent ten trials were included. The intervention group had significant differences in pain (SMD = -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.06), function (SMD = -0.19; -0.30 to -0.07), coping attempts (SMD = 0.37; 0.24 to 0.49), pain catastrophizing (SMD = -0.16; -0.29 to -0.02), and self-efficacy (SMD = 0.27; 0.07 to 0.46) than the control group. Between-group differences measured by the McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscales of pain (MD = -0.62; -1.48 to 0.24) or function (MD = -3.01; -6.26 to 0.24) were not statistically significant and did not reach the minimal clinically important differences that have been established. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant subgroup differences. Besides, no specific intervention-related adverse events were identified. CONCLUSION: Our results supported the effectiveness and safety of pain coping skills training for managing osteoarthritis in pain, function, and psychological aspects. Besides, exercise could not add benefits when combined with pain coping skills training.

Enhancing meaning in the face of advanced cancer and pain: Qualitative evaluation of a meaning-centered psychosocial pain management intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to obtain patient evaluations of the content, structure, and delivery modality of Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC), a novel psychosocial intervention for patients with advanced cancer and pain. MCPC aims to help patients connect with valued sources of meaning in their lives (e.g., family relationships), while providing training in evidence-based cognitive and behavioral skills (e.g., guided imagery) to reduce pain. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients with stage IV solid tumor cancers and persistent pain. Transcripts were analyzed using methods from applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: When evaluating MCPC's educational information and skills training descriptions, participants described ways in which this content resonated with their experience. Many coped with their pain and poor prognosis by relying on frameworks that provided them with a sense of meaning, often involving their personally held religious or spiritual beliefs. They also expressed a need for learning ways to cope with pain in addition to taking medication. A few participants offered helpful suggestions for refining MCPC's content, such as addressing common co-occurring symptoms of sleep disturbance and fatigue. Concerning MCPC's structure and delivery modality, most participants preferred that sessions include their family caregiver and described remote delivery (i.e., telephone or videoconference) as being more feasible than attending in-person sessions. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Participants were interested in an intervention that concurrently focuses on learning pain coping skills and enhancing a sense of meaning. Using remote delivery modalities may reduce access barriers (e.g., travel) that would otherwise prevent many patients from utilizing psychosocial services.

A behavioral cancer pain intervention: A randomized noninferiority trial comparing in-person with videoconference delivery.

OBJECTIVE: Behavioral cancer pain interventions are efficacious for improving important pain outcomes; yet, traditional in-person delivery limits patient access. This study compared videoconference-delivered mobile health pain coping skills training (mPCST) to in-person pain coping skills training (PCST-traditional). METHODS: This study was a randomized, noninferiority trial with cancer patients. Participants (N = 178) were randomly assigned to four, 45-minute sessions of mPCST or PCST-traditional. Session content focused on evidence-based cognitive and behavioral pain management skills. Assessments were completed at baseline, posttreatment, and 3-month posttreatment, and included measures of primary intervention outcomes (ie, pain severity and pain interference) and secondary intervention outcomes (ie, physical symptoms, psychological distress, physical well-being, and self-efficacy). The main study aim tested whether mPCST was more accessible (defined as feasibility, acceptability, patient burden, and engagement) than PCST-traditional. The second aim tested whether mPCST was noninferior to PCST-traditional. RESULTS: mPCST demonstrated significantly greater feasibility (ie, attrition, adherence, and time to completion) than PCST-traditional. Both groups reported similar patient burden and engagement as well as a high degree of acceptability. All intervention outcomes demonstrated noninferiority at posttreatment and, with the exception of physical symptoms, 3-month posttreatment. Concerning the primary intervention outcomes, 95% CIs for the mean differences (d) were below the noninferiority margin of 1 for pain severity (posttreatment d = 0.09, 95% CI, -0.63-0.81; 3 months d = -0.43 95% CI, -1.22-0.36) and pain interference (posttreatment d = -0.11, 95% CI, -0.99-0.76; 3 months d = -0.26 95% CI, -1.14-0.62). CONCLUSION: mPCST is highly accessible and noninferior to PCST-traditional.

Development and pilot testing of an mHealth behavioral cancer pain protocol for medically underserved communities.

The purpose of this study was to refine and test a mobile-health behavioral cancer pain coping skills training protocol for women with breast cancer and pain from medically underserved areas. Three focus groups (Phase 1) were used to refine the initial protocol. A single-arm pilot trial (Phase 2) was conducted to assess feasibility, acceptability, and changes in outcomes. The intervention was delivered at a community-based clinic via videoconferencing technology. Participants were women (N = 19 for Phase 1 and N = 20 for Phase 2) with breast cancer and pain in medically underserved areas. Major themes from focus groups were used to refine the intervention. The refined intervention demonstrated feasibility and acceptability. Participants reported significant improvement in pain severity, pain interference, and self-efficacy for pain management. Our intervention is feasible, acceptable, and likely to lead to improvement in pain-related outcomes for breast cancer patients in medically underserved areas. Implications for Psychosocial Oncology Practice Breast cancer patients being treated in medically underserved areas have a dearth of exposure to behavioral interventions that may improve their ability to manage pain. Evidence from this single-arm pilot trial suggests that our mobile-health behavioral cancer pain coping skills training protocol is acceptable and feasible in this vulnerable population. Appropriately adapted mobile-health technologies may provide an avenue to reach underserved patients and implement behavioral interventions to improve pain management.

Pain coping skills training for African Americans with osteoarthritis study: baseline participant characteristics and comparison to prior studies.

BACKGROUND: The Pain Coping Skills Training for African Americans with OsteoaRTthritis (STAART) trial is examining the effectiveness of a culturally enhanced pain coping skills training (CST) program for African Americans with osteoarthritis (OA). This disparities-focused trial aimed to reach a population with greater symptom severity and risk factors for poor pain-related outcomes than previous studies. This paper compares characteristics of STAART participants with prior studies of CST or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-informed training in pain coping strategies for OA. METHODS: A literature search identified 10 prior trials of pain CST or CBT-informed pain coping training among individuals with OA. We descriptively compared characteristics of STAART participants with other studies, in 3 domains of the National Institutes of Minority Health and Health Disparities' Research Framework: Sociocultural Environment (e.g., age, education, marital status), Biological Vulnerability and Mechanisms (e.g, pain and function, body mass index), and Health Behaviors and Coping (e.g., pain catastrophizing). Means and standard deviations (SDs) or proportions were calculated for STAART participants and extracted from published manuscripts for comparator studies. RESULTS: The mean age of STAART participants, 59 years (SD = 10.3), was lower than 9 of 10 comparator studies; the proportion of individuals with some education beyond high school, 75%, was comparable to comparator studies (61-86%); and the proportion of individuals who are married or living with a partner, 42%, was lower than comparator studies (62-66%). Comparator studies had less than about 1/3 African American participants. Mean scores on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and function scales were higher (worse) for STAART participants than for other studies, and mean body mass index of STAART participants, 35.2 kg/m2 (SD = 8.2), was higher than all other studies (30-34 kg/m2). STAART participants' mean score on the Pain Catastrophizing scale, 19.8 (SD = 12.3), was higher (worse) than other studies reporting this measure (7-17). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with prior studies with predominantly white samples, STAART participants have worse pain and function and more risk factors for negative pain-related outcomes across several domains. Given STAART participants' high mean pain catastrophizing scores, this sample may particularly benefit from the CST intervention approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02560922.

A qualitative study of patient and provider perspectives on using web-based pain coping skills training to treat persistent cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: Persistent pain is common and inadequately treated in cancer patients. Behavioral pain interventions are a recommended part of multimodal pain treatments, but they are underused in clinical care due to barriers such as a lack of the resources needed to deliver them in person and difficulties coordinating their use with clinical care. Pain coping skills training (PCST) is an evidence-based behavioral pain intervention traditionally delivered in person. Delivering this training via the web would increase access to it by addressing barriers that currently limit its use. We conducted a patient pilot study of an 8-week web-based PCST program to determine the acceptability of this approach to patients and the program features needed to meet their needs. Focus groups with healthcare providers identified strategies for coordinating the use of web-based PCST in clinical care. METHOD: Participants included 7 adults with bone pain due to multiple myeloma or metastasized breast or prostate cancer and 12 healthcare providers (4 physicians and 8 advanced practice providers) who treat cancer-related bone pain. Patients completed web-based PCST at home and then took part in an in-depth qualitative interview. Providers attended focus groups led by a trained moderator. Qualitative analyses identified themes in the patient and provider data. RESULTS: Patients reported strongly favorable responses to web-based PCST and described emotional and physical benefits. They offered suggestions for adapting the approach to better fit their needs and to overcome barriers to completion. Focus groups indicated a need to familiarize healthcare providers with PCST and to address concerns about overburdening patients. Providers would recommend the program to patients they felt could benefit. They suggested applying a broad definition of cancer pain and having various types of providers help coordinate program its use with clinical care. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Web-based PCST was acceptable to patients and providers. Our findings suggest that patients could benefit from this approach, especially if patient and provider barriers are addressed.

Pain coping skills training for African Americans with osteoarthritis (STAART): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: African Americans bear a disproportionate burden of osteoarthritis (OA), with higher prevalence rates, more severe pain, and more functional limitations. One key barrier to addressing these disparities has been limited engagement of African Americans in the development and evaluation of behavioral interventions for management of OA. Pain Coping Skills Training (CST) is a cognitive-behavioral intervention with shown efficacy to improve OA-related pain and other outcomes. Emerging data indicate pain CST may be a promising intervention for reducing racial disparities in OA symptom severity. However, there are important gaps in this research, including incorporation of stakeholder perspectives (e.g. cultural appropriateness, strategies for implementation into clinical practice) and testing pain CST specifically among African Americans with OA. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of a culturally enhanced pain CST program among African Americans with OA. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial among 248 participants with symptomatic hip or knee OA, with equal allocation to a pain CST group and a wait list (WL) control group. The pain CST program incorporated feedback from patients and other stakeholders and involves 11 weekly telephone-based sessions. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 12 weeks (primary time point), and 36 weeks (to assess maintenance of treatment effects). The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and secondary outcomes include self-efficacy, pain coping, pain interference, quality of life, depressive symptoms, and global assessment of change. Linear mixed models will be used to compare the pain CST group to the WL control group and explore whether participant characteristics are associated with differential improvement in the pain CST program. This research is in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, East Carolina University, and Duke University Health System. DISCUSSION: This culturally enhanced pain CST program could have a substantial impact on outcomes for African Americans with OA and may be a key strategy in the reduction of racial health disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02560922 , registered 9/22/2015.

The design and baseline characteristics for the HOPE Consortium Trial to reduce pain and opioid use in hemodialysis.

The HOPE Consortium Trial to Reduce Pain and Opioid Use in Hemodialysis (HOPE Trial) is a multicenter randomized trial addressing chronic pain among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease. The trial uses a sequential, multiple assignment design with a randomized component for all participants (Phase 1) and a non-randomized component for a subset of participants (Phase 2). During Phase 1, participants are randomized to Pain Coping Skills Training (PCST), an intervention designed to increase self-efficacy for managing pain, or Usual Care. PCST consists of weekly, live, coach-led cognitive behavioral therapy sessions delivered by video- or tele-conferencing for 12 weeks followed by daily interactive voice response sessions delivered by telephone for an additional 12 weeks. At 24 weeks (Phase 2), participants in both the PCST and Usual Care groups taking prescription opioid medications at an average dose of ≥20 morphine milligram equivalents per day are offered buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist with a more favorable safety profile than full-agonist opioids. All participants are followed for 36 weeks. The primary outcome is pain interference ascertained, for the primary analysis, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include additional patient-reported measures and clinical outcomes including falls, hospitalizations, and death. Exploratory outcomes include acceptability, tolerability, and efficacy of buprenorphine. The enrollment target of 640 participants was met 27 months after trial initiation. The findings of the trial will inform the management of chronic pain, a common and challenging issue for patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis. NCT04571619.

Meaning-centered pain coping skills training for patients with metastatic cancer: Protocol for a randomized controlled efficacy trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced cancer describe pain as a debilitating symptom that greatly interferes with daily activities and enjoyment of life. Psychosocial interventions can improve cancer-related pain but rarely address spiritual concerns (e.g., loss of meaning, peace), which can influence the pain experience for those facing life-threatening illness. To address these needs, we systematically developed and pilot tested a novel psychosocial intervention called Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC). In this randomized controlled trial, we aim to determine MCPC's efficacy for reducing pain interference (primary outcome) and improving secondary outcomes. We will also estimate MCPC's cost-effectiveness. METHOD/DESIGN: Patients (target N = 210) with advanced solid tumor malignancies (Stage IV) and clinically-elevated pain interference will be enrolled and block randomized with equal allocation to MCPC + enhanced usual care or enhanced usual care alone. MCPC's four, videoconferenced, 45-60 min weekly sessions will be individually delivered by trained study therapists. Primary (pain interference) and secondary (pain severity, anxiety and depressive symptoms, pain self-efficacy, social support, spiritual well-being) patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, and 8-weeks (primary endpoint) and 12-weeks after baseline. CONCLUSION: Our MCPC intervention is the first to systematically address the biopsychosocial-spiritual aspects of pain in patients with advanced cancer. If MCPC demonstrates efficacy, next steps will involve hybrid efficacy-effectiveness and implementation work to broaden access to this brief, manualized, remotely-delivered intervention, with the goal of reducing suffering in patients with life-threatening illness.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Evaluating Delivery Strategies for Pain Coping Skills Training in Women With Breast Cancer.

Pain coping skills training (PCST) is efficacious in patients with cancer, but clinical access is limited. To inform implementation, as a secondary outcome, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of 8 dosing strategies of PCST evaluated in a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial among women with breast cancer and pain (N = 327). Women were randomized to initial doses and re-randomized to subsequent doses based on their initial response (ie, ≥30% pain reduction). A decision-analytic model was designed to incorporate costs and benefits associated with 8 different PCST dosing strategies. In the primary analysis, costs were limited to resources required to deliver PCST. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were modeled based on utility weights measured with the EuroQol-5 dimension 5-level at 4 assessments over 10 months. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Implementation of PCST initiated with the 5-session protocol was more costly ($693-853) than strategies initiated with the 1-session protocol ($288-496). QALYs for strategies beginning with the 5-session protocol were greater than for strategies beginning with the 1-session protocol. With the goal of implementing PCST as part of comprehensive cancer treatment and with willingness-to-pay thresholds ranging beyond $20,000 per QALY, the strategy most likely to provide the greatest number of QALYs at an acceptable cost was a 1-session PCST protocol followed by either 5 maintenance telephone calls for responders or 5 sessions of PCST for nonresponders. A PCST program with 1 initial session and subsequent dosing based on response provides good value and improved outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the results of a cost analysis of the delivery of PCST, a nonpharmacological intervention, to women with breast cancer and pain. Results could potentially provide important cost-related information to health care providers and systems on the use of an efficacious and accessible nonmedication strategy for pain management. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02791646, registered 6/2/2016.

Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training: A Pilot Feasibility Trial of a Psychosocial Pain Management Intervention for Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Background: Pain from advanced cancer can greatly reduce patients' physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Objective: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of a behavioral pain management intervention, Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC). Design: This trial used a single-arm feasibility design. Setting/Subjects: Thirty participants with stage IV solid tumor cancer, moderate-to-severe pain, and clinically elevated distress were enrolled from a tertiary cancer center in the United States. The manualized protocol was delivered across four 45- to 60-minute videoconference sessions. Measurements: Feasibility and acceptability were assessed through accrual, session/assessment completion, intervention satisfaction, and coping skills usage. Participants completed validated measures of primary outcomes (i.e., pain severity, pain interference, and spiritual well-being) and secondary outcomes at baseline, post-intervention, and four-week follow-up. Results: Eighty-eight percent (38/43) of patients who completed screening met inclusion criteria, and 79% (30/38) consented and completed baseline assessment. Sixty-seven percent (20/30) of participants were female (mean age = 57). Most participants were White/Caucasian (77%; 23/30) or Black/African American (17%; 5/30) with at least some college education (90%; 27/30). Completion rates for intervention sessions and both post-intervention assessments were 90% (27/30), 87% (26/30), and 77% (23/30), respectively. At the post-intervention assessment, participants reported a high degree of intervention satisfaction (mean = 3.53/4.00; SD = 0.46), and 81% (21/26) reported weekly use of coping skills that they learned. Participants also showed improvement from baseline on all primary outcomes and nearly all secondary outcomes at both post-intervention assessments. Conclusions: MCPC demonstrated strong feasibility and acceptability. Findings warrant further evaluation of MCPC in a randomized controlled trial. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03207360.

Improving well-being for individuals with persistent pain after surgery for breast cancer, lobular carcinoma in situ, or ductal carcinoma in situ: A randomized clinical trial.

>276,000 Americans will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, lobular carcinoma in situ, or ductal carcinoma in situ this year and most will undergo breast surgery as part of their care. Although prognosis is excellent, many patients experience persistent post-surgical pain (PSP), which has no satisfactory pharmacological treatment. The causal contributions of pain-associated psychological factors (e.g., catastrophic thoughts about pain, psychological flexibility, self-efficacy) to the continuing burden of PSP have not yet been determined and may be opportune intervention targets. The randomized trial described here will compare the benefits of three manualized behavioral interventions for individuals with PSP. Participants will receive either: 1) self-guided health education (SGHE); 2) interventionist-guided health education (IGHE); or 3) interventionist-guided pain coping skills training with elements of acceptance and commitment therapy that specially target catastrophic thoughts about pain, self-efficacy, and psychological flexibility (CST-PSP). Participants will prospectively complete validated assessments of primary outcomes (PSP severity and interference) at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-, 6-, and 12-months later. Validated measures of emotional distress and cancer-specific distress will be assessed as secondary outcomes. To test their roles as drivers of PSP, catastrophic thoughts about pain, self-efficacy, and psychological flexibility, will be assessed and statistically analyzed as mediators of hypothesized beneficial effects. The interventions' impacts on pain sensitivity and central sensitization will be investigated to test these physiological pathways as proximal drivers of PSP. To better characterize the patient experience, additional validated measures will be explored for associations with PSP, along with demographic and clinical factors. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04225585, registered January 13, 2020.

Behavioral cancer pain intervention using videoconferencing and a mobile application for medically underserved patients: Rationale, design, and methods of a prospective multisite randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast cancer in medically underserved areas are particularly vulnerable to persistent pain and disability. Behavioral pain interventions reduce pain and improve outcomes. Cancer patients in medically underserved areas receive limited adjunctive cancer care, as many lack access to pain therapists trained in behavioral interventions, face travel barriers to regional medical centers, and may have low literacy and limited resources. mHealth technologies have the potential to decrease barriers but must be carefully adapted for, and efficacy-tested with, medically underserved patients. We developed an mHealth behavioral pain coping skills training intervention (mPCST-Community). We now utilize a multisite randomized controlled trial to: 1) test the extent mPCST-Community reduces breast cancer patients' pain severity (primary outcome), pain interference, fatigue, physical disability, and psychological distress; 2) examine potential mediators of intervention effects; and 3) evaluate the intervention's cost and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: Breast cancer patients (N = 180) will be randomized to mPCST-Community or an attention control. mPCST-Community's four-session protocol will be delivered via videoconferencing at an underserved community clinic by a remote pain therapist at a major medical center. Videoconference sessions will be supplemented with a mobile application. Participants will complete self-report measures at baseline, post-intervention, and 3- and 6-month follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: mPCST-Community has the potential to reduce pain and disability, and decrease barriers for cancer patients in medically underserved areas. This is one of the first trials to test an mHealth behavioral cancer pain intervention developed specifically for medically underserved communities. If successful, it could lead to widespread implementation and decreased health disparities.

STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE): Protocol for a pragmatic randomized trial of pain coping skills training and opioid medication taper guidance for patients on long-term opioid therapy.

High-dose, long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) is associated with risk for serious harms. Rapid opioid discontinuation may lead to increased pain, psychological distress, and illicit opioid use, but gradual, supported opioid taper may reduce these risks. We previously demonstrated that an opioid taper support and pain coping skills training intervention reduced opioid dose more than usual care (43% vs 19% dose reduction from baseline), with no increase in pain intensity and a significant reduction in activity interference. We aim to adapt and test this intervention in the Kaiser Permanente Washington healthcare system with STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE, NCT03743402), a pragmatic, randomized trial. Our goal was to randomize 215 participants on moderate-high dose (≥40 morphine milligram equivalent/day) LtOT to either cognitive-behavioral therapy-based pain coping skills training involving 18 telephone sessions over 52 weeks with optional opioid taper support or usual care. Data are collected from electronic health records, claims, and self-report. The primary outcomes are mean daily opioid dose and the pain intensity, interference with enjoyment of life, and interference with general activity (PEG) score at 12 months (primary time point) and 6 months (secondary time point). Secondary outcomes include having ≥30% opioid dose reduction from baseline, and patient-reported problem opioid use, opioid-related difficulties, pain self-efficacy, opioid craving, global impression of change, and anxiety and depressive symptoms at 6 and 12 months. If effective, this treatment could reduce opioid exposure and associated risks to patients, families, and communities while offering patients an alternative for managing pain.

Optimizing delivery of a behavioral pain intervention in cancer patients using a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial SMART.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Pain is common in cancer patients and results in lower quality of life, depression, poor physical functioning, financial difficulty, and decreased survival time. Behavioral pain interventions are effective and nonpharmacologic. Traditional randomized controlled trials (RCT) test interventions of fixed time and dose, which poorly represent successive treatment decisions in clinical practice. We utilize a novel approach to conduct a RCT, the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design, to provide comparative evidence of: 1) response to differing initial doses of a pain coping skills training (PCST) intervention and 2) intervention dose sequences adjusted based on patient response. We also examine: 3) participant characteristics moderating intervention responses and 4) cost-effectiveness and practicality. METHODS/DESIGN: Breast cancer patients (N=327) having pain (ratings≥5) are recruited and randomly assigned to: 1) PCST-Full or 2) PCST-Brief. PCST-Full consists of 5 PCST sessions. PCST-Brief consists of one 60-min PCST session. Five weeks post-randomization, participants re-rate their pain and are re-randomized, based on intervention response, to receive additional PCST sessions, maintenance calls, or no further intervention. Participants complete measures of pain intensity, interference and catastrophizing. CONCLUSIONS: Novel RCT designs may provide information that can be used to optimize behavioral pain interventions to be adaptive, better meet patients' needs, reduce barriers, and match with clinical practice. This is one of the first trials to use a novel design to evaluate symptom management in cancer patients and in chronic illness; if successful, it could serve as a model for future work with a wide range of chronic illnesses.