Back to the records

Study

Feasibility of a Mind-Body Program for Chronic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Jonathan Greenberg, Julia E Hooker, Katherine A McDermott, Danielle E La Camera, Julie R Brewer, Claire L Szapary, Tamara J Somers, Francis Keefe, Sarah A Kelleher, Hannah M Fisher, John Burns, Rebecca Jeddi, Ronald Kulich, Gary I Polykoff, Robert A Parker, Ana-Maria Vranceanu, Allison Diachina, Sara Hogan, Natalie Chou, Latrice Yates · JAMA network open · 2025

Read the original paper ↗

The short version

This feasibility randomized clinical trial with 92 sedentary adults experiencing chronic musculoskeletal pain explored whether a mind-body walking program could be delivered successfully across three geographically and racially diverse U.S. academic medical centers, compared with a health education program. The mind-body walking program combined quota-based pacing — increasing step-count goals gradually based on what participants could sustain, rather than tying goals to whether pain was present — with mind-body skills such as breathing exercises and body scans, and cognitive skills aimed at identifying and reframing unhelpful pain-related thoughts. The trial measured physical function in three complementary ways (self-reported, performance-based, and step-count-based), addressing a gap identified in pain-trial reporting guidelines. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the 10-week, 60-minute weekly group mind-body walking program (47 participants) or a matched health-education control (45 participants), recruited between April 2023 and January 2024. The mind-body group received a Fitbit Inspire 3 tracker with individualized weekly step goals. Physical function was measured with the 6-Minute Walk Test, a wrist-worn accelerometer worn for one week, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule. Pain, mood, and psychological mechanisms — pain catastrophizing, fear of movement, adaptive coping, and mindfulness — were measured with validated questionnaires before and after the program. Both programs met most feasibility benchmarks, including attendance (95.7% mind-body walking vs 82.2% health education), delivery fidelity, and participant retention (93.6% vs 86.7%). Racial and ethnic diversity exceeded its target (54.3% of participants from minority groups, against a 38% benchmark), though overall recruitment fell short (69.7% of eligible patients enrolled, against an 80% target). Within the mind-body walking group, participants showed large pre-to-post improvements in walking distance (48.6 meters over six minutes, P<.001), self-reported physical function (P<.001), and pain catastrophizing (P<.001), plus medium improvements in pain intensity (P=.002) and fear of movement (P<.001), and smaller but significant improvements in adaptive coping and mindfulness (both P<.05). The health education group improved only on walking distance and pain intensity. Because the trial was not statistically powered to compare the two programs against each other, these within-group changes describe what happened in each arm rather than a demonstrated advantage of one program over the other. The trial establishes that a mind-body walking program can be delivered with strong attendance and participant satisfaction across diverse academic medical centers, supporting a future, fully powered efficacy trial. The findings do not establish that the mind-body walking program produces greater benefit than health education, since the study was designed to test feasibility rather than comparative outcomes. The gap between eligible and enrolled participants (69.7% versus an 80% target) points to recruitment timing as an area for refinement in future trial designs.

Key findings

  • A 10-week, weekly, group-based walking program that combined gradually increasing step-count goals (called quota-based pacing) with relaxation and thought-reframing skills was found to be practical to deliver to 92 adults with chronic pain lasting three months or longer, across three U.S. medical centers with a racially and ethnically diverse mix of participants.
  • Participants in the walking program attended sessions reliably (96% attended at least 7 of 10 sessions), stayed in the study through the end (94%), and rated the program as satisfying (98%) and credible (100%).
  • From before to after the program, participants in the walking program walked farther in a 6-minute walking test, reported better day-to-day physical function, and reported less catastrophic thinking about their pain (a pattern of worry and helplessness around pain), with the largest changes seen in these three measures.
  • The comparison health-education program (covering topics like nutrition and sleep) only showed improvement in walking distance and pain intensity, not in the psychological measures.
  • Because the study was built to test whether the program could be run successfully rather than to directly compare it against the health-education program, these results cannot yet show that the walking program works better than the comparison program — a larger, fully powered trial is needed to test that question directly.

Common questions

What healing modality was studied?

A mind-body walking program combining quota-based step-count pacing, mind-body skills (breathing, body scan, self-compassion), and cognitive skills for pain-related thinking, compared against a health-education program, for adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

What condition was addressed?

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (pain present for three or more months), in a sample recruited from pain clinics at three U.S. academic medical centers.

What were the main findings?

Both the mind-body walking program and the health-education program were feasible to deliver, meeting most attendance, fidelity, retention, and diversity benchmarks. Participants in the mind-body walking program showed large within-group improvements in walking distance, self-reported physical function, and pain catastrophizing, and medium improvements in pain intensity and fear of movement; the health-education program improved only on walking distance and pain intensity.

How strong is the evidence?

Preliminary. This was a feasibility trial with 92 participants, not powered or designed to statistically compare the two programs against each other; the authors state the results are not intended to demonstrate efficacy.

What are the clinical implications?

The results support moving forward with a fully powered, multisite efficacy trial of the mind-body walking program; they do not yet establish that the program is more effective than health education for chronic pain.

This summary and its findings were generated by AI from the published paper and may contain imperfections. It describes a study and is not medical advice — talk to a qualified clinician about your own health (terms). The original study is always the source of truth — read it above.