Trial Outcomes & Findings for Agile Development of a Digital Exposure Treatment for Youth With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain (NCT NCT05079984)

NCT ID: NCT05079984

Last Updated: 2026-07-22

Results Overview

Participant-rated acceptability measured on 5-point Likert scale. Range 0-4 (higher scores indicate more acceptable). Questionnaire will be administered to youth with chronic pain and their parents.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

108 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

One day

Results posted on

2026-07-22

Participant Flow

For Aim 1 (one time study visit), youth of chronic pain and caregivers of youth with chronic pain were recruited. However, these were not exclusively dyads. For Aim 2 (intervention), youth-caregiver dyads were recruited and enrolled.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
User Centered Development-Youth
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
Graded Exposure Intervention-Caregivers
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
Aim 1
STARTED
15
17
0
0
Aim 1
COMPLETED
15
17
0
0
Aim 1
NOT COMPLETED
0
0
0
0
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
STARTED
0
0
38
38
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
Completed Baseline Assessment
0
0
38
38
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
Completed the Intervention
0
0
31
35
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
COMPLETED
0
0
22
33
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
NOT COMPLETED
0
0
16
5

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

Agile Development of a Digital Exposure Treatment for Youth With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
User Centered Development-Youth
n=15 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
n=17 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
Graded Exposure Intervention-Caregivers
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
Total
n=108 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
15 Participants
n=9 Participants
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
38 Participants
n=267 Participants
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
53 Participants
n=568 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
17 Participants
n=27 Participants
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
38 Participants
n=265 Participants
55 Participants
n=568 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
0 Participants
n=568 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
13 Participants
n=9 Participants
14 Participants
n=27 Participants
29 Participants
n=267 Participants
31 Participants
n=265 Participants
87 Participants
n=568 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
2 Participants
n=9 Participants
3 Participants
n=27 Participants
9 Participants
n=267 Participants
7 Participants
n=265 Participants
21 Participants
n=568 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
0 Participants
n=568 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
2 Participants
n=9 Participants
1 Participants
n=27 Participants
4 Participants
n=267 Participants
4 Participants
n=265 Participants
11 Participants
n=568 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
1 Participants
n=267 Participants
1 Participants
n=265 Participants
2 Participants
n=568 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
1 Participants
n=265 Participants
1 Participants
n=568 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
7 Participants
n=9 Participants
14 Participants
n=27 Participants
23 Participants
n=267 Participants
25 Participants
n=265 Participants
69 Participants
n=568 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
2 Participants
n=9 Participants
1 Participants
n=27 Participants
3 Participants
n=267 Participants
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
6 Participants
n=568 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
4 Participants
n=9 Participants
1 Participants
n=27 Participants
7 Participants
n=267 Participants
7 Participants
n=265 Participants
19 Participants
n=568 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants
n=9 Participants
4 Participants
n=27 Participants
3 Participants
n=267 Participants
3 Participants
n=265 Participants
12 Participants
n=568 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
13 Participants
n=9 Participants
13 Participants
n=27 Participants
35 Participants
n=267 Participants
35 Participants
n=265 Participants
96 Participants
n=568 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
0 Participants
n=568 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
15 Participants
n=9 Participants
17 Participants
n=27 Participants
38 Participants
n=267 Participants
38 Participants
n=265 Participants
108 Participants
n=568 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: One day

Population: Population for Aim 2 includes participants who received the intervention.

Participant-rated acceptability measured on 5-point Likert scale. Range 0-4 (higher scores indicate more acceptable). Questionnaire will be administered to youth with chronic pain and their parents.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=15 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
n=17 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Assessment of Acceptability of Treatment Content - Likert Scale (Aim 1)
3.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.69
3.8 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.23

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: 10 weeks (assessed at discharge)

Population: Aim 2 youth participants who completed the intervention

Treatment satisfaction at the end of treatment will be evaluated by examining mean satisfaction scores on an adapted version of the Pain Service Satisfaction Test (PSST, McCracken et al., 1997). The PSST consists of 23 items rated on a 5-point Likert Scale (0 = not at all satisfied to 4 = very satisfied) and assesses the patient and parent's experience of the intervention. Scores range from 0-92. A score greater than/equal to 40 of 60 (satisfied to very satisfied) will indicate high levels of satisfaction with the intervention content. Caregivers were not assessed for this Outcome Measure.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=31 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Participant Satisfaction With the Intervention (Aim 2)
36.13 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.46

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: 10 weeks (Completed at discharge)

As a measure of treatment adherence, we will calculate the percentage of participants who drop out or withdraw from the intervention prior to completion of the intervention.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
n=38 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Percentage of Participants Dropped Out of Intervention (Aim 2)
7 Participants
3 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Assessed seven days after starting the intervention (7 days post-baseline)

To assess expectations for treatment effectiveness, participants completed the Credibility/Effectiveness Questionnaire (CEQ; Borkovec \& Nau, 1972) after engaging with iGET Living for one week. The CEQ consists of six items rated on a 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) Likert scale and assesses expectations related to the effects of the intervention across two subscales: Credibility (e.g., "How confident would you be recommending iGET Living to a friend with the same problems?") and Expectancy (e.g., "By the end of iGET Living, how much do you think your functioning will improve?"). Credibility is calculated by summing items 1-3 and Expectancy by summing items 4-6. Possible range of scores for each subscale is 0-30, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived credibility and expectancy.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=36 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
n=36 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Expectations for Treatment (Aim 2)
Credibility
19.71 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.34
22.42 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.63
Expectations for Treatment (Aim 2)
Expectancy
17.96 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.83
19.84 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.59

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)

Population: Aim 2 participants who received the intervention with data at the respective time point. Caregivers were not assessed for this Outcome Measure.

Functional disability will be assessed using the Functional Disability Inventory (FDI, Walker \& Greene, 1991), a 15-item self-report measure of perceived difficulty in performing activities in school, home, physical, and social contexts. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no trouble) to 4 (impossible). Scores from all the Items are summed to create a total score (range 0-60), with higher scores indicating greater disability.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Functional Disability (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
28.81 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.77
Functional Disability (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
22.81 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.65
Functional Disability (Aim 2)
3-Month Follow-Up (12 weeks post-discharge)
23.09 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.61

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)

Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants at baseline.

Fear of Pain Questionnaire, Child Report, Short Form (FOPQ-C-SF, Heathcote et al., 2020) is a 10-item self-report measure that assesses pain-related fear and avoidance of activities. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Scores from all the Items are summed to create a total score ranging from 0 - 40. Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain-related fear and avoidance (worst outcome).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Child Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
24.91 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.80
Child Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
19.54 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.63
Child Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
18.68 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.52

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)

Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants who completed Baseline.

The Parent Fear of Pain Questionnaire (PFOPQ, Simons et al., 2015) assesses parent's fear associated with their child's pain experiences. The PFOPQ contains 23 items assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "strongly disagree" to 4 "strongly agree"). Items are summed to create a total score (0-92), with higher scores indicated greater parent fear associated with their child's pain.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Parental Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
37.34 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.79
Parental Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
28.97 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.80
Parental Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
29.0 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.90

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)

Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of patients who completed baseline

The Pain Catastrophizing Scale -Child Version (PCS-C, Crombez et al., 2003) assesses negative cognitions associated with pain. The PCS-C is comprised of 13-items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0= "not at all true" to 4 "very true"). A total score (0-52) is obtained by summing all items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of catastrophic thinking.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Child Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
30.72 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.06
Child Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
25.26 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.59
Child Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
23.54 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.71

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)

Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents number of participants who completed baseline.

Pain Catastrophizing Scale-Parent Version (PCS-P, Goubert et al., 2006) assesses parents' negative cognitions associated with their child's pain. It is comprised of 13 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "not true at all" to 4 = "very true"). A total score (0-52) is derived by summing items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of catastrophic thinking.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Parent Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
24.51 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.98
Parent Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
19.15 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.50
Parent Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
20.36 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.04

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)

Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants who completed baseline.

Child report on the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire for Adolescents-short form (CPAQ-A8, Gauntlett-Gilbert et al., 2018) will be used to assess pain acceptance in the child. The CPAQ-A8 is an 8-item measure consisting of two subscales: Activity Engagement (4 items) and Pain Willingness (4 items). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never True) to 4 (Always True) and yield a total score for each subscale ranging from 0-16. Higher scores indicate greater Activity Engagement and greater Pain Willingness (positive outcome) .

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7) Activity Engagement Subscale
7.44 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.12
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline) Activity Engagement Subscale
9.16 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.33
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge) Activity Engagement Subscale
10.27 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.31
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7) Pain Willingness Subscale
10.97 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.85
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline) Pain Willingness Subscale
9.54 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.94
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge) Pain Willingness Subscale
9.09 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.30

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)

Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants who completed baseline.

The Parent Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PPFQ-10, Timmers et al., 2019) is a 10-item parent self-report questionnaire assessing a parent's ability to accept their own distress and respond adaptively and flexibly to their child's pain. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0= " never true" to 4 = "always true") and are summed to create a total score, ranging from 0 - 40. Higher scores indicate greater parent psychological flexibility (positive outcome).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Parent Psychological Flexibility (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
33.47 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.76
Parent Psychological Flexibility (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
35.21 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.19
Parent Psychological Flexibility (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
37.32 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.77

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)

Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants who completed baseline.

Adult Responses to Children's Symptoms (ARCS, Claar et al., 2010) assesses parents' behavioral responses to children's pain behaviors. The Protect subscale (13 items) will be utilized in this study. The Protect scale refers to protective parental behavior, such as giving the child special attention and limiting the child's normal activities and responsibilities. All items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "never" to 4 "always"), and are averaged to create a total score ranging from 0-4. Higher scores indicating greater use of protective behavioral responses to their child's pain (worst outcome).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
Parent Responses to Childs Pain (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
1.48 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.59
Parent Responses to Childs Pain (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
1.17 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.57
Parent Responses to Childs Pain (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
1.20 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.53

Adverse Events

User Centered Development-Youth

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

User Centered Development-Caregivers

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Graded Exposure Intervention-Caregivers

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Lauren Harrison, PhD

Stanford University

Phone: 6504982486

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place