The operational definition of chronic pain used in this study may have research implications for examining predictors of incident and chronic pain. These data have important clinical implications in that addressing comorbid conditions of persistent pain may improve adaptive coping and functioning in these patients.

Future trials should focus on direct comparisons of technology-assisted interventions with in-person treatment and head to head comparisons of different technology-assisted modalities. Additional areas of focus include quantifying the cost of technology-assisted interventions, examining the effect of treatment "dose" on outcomes, and establishing guidelines for developing treatments for the technology-assisted environment.

Several factors may moderate or mediate the relationship between chronic pain and neurocognitive functioning, including mood symptoms, medication side effects, and intensity and/or chronicity of pain. Limitations in the literature include a paucity of methodologically rigorous studies controlling for confounding variables (eg, opioid analgesia) and a limited number of studies examining the relationship between chronic pain and traumatic brain injury (a potential precipitant of both pain and neurocognitive impairment). Nonetheless, findings from the existing literature have significant clinical implications, including for populations with heightened risk of both pain and neurocognitive disorders.

IMPORTANCE Recommendations for chronic pain treatment emphasize multimodal approaches, including nonpharmacologic interventions to enhance self-management. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment that facilitates management of chronic pain and improves outcomes, but access barriers persist. Cognitive behavioral therapy delivery assisted by health technology can obviate the need for in-person visits, but the effectiveness of this alternative to standard therapy is unknown. The Cooperative Pain Education and Self-management (COPES) trial was a randomized, noninferiority trial comparing IVR-CBT to in-person CBT for patients with chronic back pain. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of interactive voice response-based CBT (IVR-CBT) relative to in-person CBT for chronic back pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We conducted a noninferiority randomized trial in 1 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. A total of 125 patients with chronic back pain were equally allocated to IVR-CBT (n = 62) or in-person CBT (n = 63). INTERVENTIONS Patients treated with IVR-CBT received a self-help manual and weekly prerecorded therapist feedback based on their IVR-reported activity, coping skill practice, and pain outcomes. In-person CBT included weekly, individual CBT sessions with a therapist. Participants in both conditions received IVR monitoring of pain, sleep, activity levels, and pain coping skill practice during treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change from baseline to 3 months in unblinded patient report of average pain intensity measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included changes in pain-related interference, physical and emotional functioning, sleep quality, and quality of life at 3, 6, and 9 months. We also examined treatment retention. RESULTS Of the 125 patients (97 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 57.9 [11.6] years), the adjusted average reduction in NRS with IVR-CBT (−0.77) was similar to in-person CBT (−0.84), with the 95% CI for the difference between groups (−0.67 to 0.80) falling below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1 indicating IVR-CBT is noninferior. Fifty-four patients randomized to IVR-CBT and 50 randomized to in-person CBT were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. Statistically significant improvements in physical functioning, sleep quality, and physical quality of life at 3 months relative to baseline occurred in both treatments, with no advantage for either treatment. Treatment dropout was lower in IVR-CBT with patients completing on average 2.3 (95% CI, 1.0-3.6) more sessions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE IVR-CBT is a low-burden alternative that can increase access to CBT for chronic pain and shows promise as a nonpharmacologic treatment option for chronic pain, with outcomes that are not inferior to in-person CBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01025752