Comparison of Two Patient Education Methods in Women With Chronic Low Back Pain: Online Pain Education vs. AI-Driven Patient Education on Pain Beliefs, Catastrophizing, and Self-Efficacy
NCT07916597, Not applicable, Not yet recruiting, Amasya University
Trial 10
As registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, in the graph's capture of the registry.
| Field | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Comparison of Two Patient Education Methods in Women With Chronic Low Back Pain: Online Pain Education vs. AI-Driven Patient Education on Pain Beliefs, Catastrophizing, and Self-Efficacy | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| NCT number | NCT07916597 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Status | Not yet recruiting | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Phases | Not applicable | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Enrollment | 60 participants, estimated | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Lead sponsor | Amasya University | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Conditions | Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Interventions | Patient Education, ChatGPT | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| First posted | 2026-11-04 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Last updated | 2026-11-04 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
Registered outcomes 6
Each outcome the trial registered, primary first, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.
| List | Outcome | Time frame | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Pain Beliefs Questionnaire | baseline | Participants' pain beliefs will be evaluated using the Pain Beliefs Questionnaire. The scale uses a 6-point Likert-type rating ranging from 0 to 5 (never, rarely, sometimes, often, almost always, and always) and consists of 12 items. Two subscale scores are obtained from the questionnaire: psychological pain belief and organic pain belief. A higher score indicates a higher pain belief related to that subscale, whereas a lower score indicates a lower pain belief. The validity and reliability study of the scale has been conducted. | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Primary | Pain Catastrophizing Scale | baseline | Participants' level of pain catastrophizing will be evaluated using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). The PCS is a 13-item Likert-type self-report scale. Each item is rated on a 0-4 scale. The total score ranges from 0 to 52. It comprises three subscales: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. Higher scores indicate higher levels of catastrophizing. The validity and reliability study of the scale has been conducted. | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Primary | Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire | baseline | Participants' level of pain-related self-efficacy will be evaluated using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ). Based on Bandura's concept of self-efficacy, the questionnaire is a 10-item self-report tool designed to measure the degree of confidence in performing a range of activities despite pain. Among questionnaires evaluating pain self-efficacy, it is a practical tool due to its brevity, possesses well-proven validity and reliability, and measures multiple domains of self-efficacy related to social and physical functioning. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (0: Not at all confident, 6: Completely confident). The total score ranges from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy for functionality despite pain. The validity and reliability study of the questionnaire has been conducted. | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Primary | Pain Beliefs Questionnaire | immediately after intervention | Participants' pain beliefs will be evaluated using the Pain Beliefs Questionnaire. The scale uses a 6-point Likert-type rating ranging from 0 to 5 (never, rarely, sometimes, often, almost always, and always) and consists of 12 items. Two subscale scores are obtained from the questionnaire: psychological pain belief and organic pain belief. A higher score indicates a higher pain belief related to that subscale, whereas a lower score indicates a lower pain belief. The validity and reliability study of the scale has been conducted. | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Primary | Pain Catastrophizing Scale | immediately after intervention | Participants' level of pain catastrophizing will be evaluated using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). The PCS is a 13-item Likert-type self-report scale. Each item is rated on a 0-4 scale. The total score ranges from 0 to 52. It comprises three subscales: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. Higher scores indicate higher levels of catastrophizing. The validity and reliability study of the scale has been conducted. | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Primary | Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire | immediately after intervention | Participants' level of pain-related self-efficacy will be evaluated using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ). Based on Bandura's concept of self-efficacy, the questionnaire is a 10-item self-report tool designed to measure the degree of confidence in performing a range of activities despite pain. Among questionnaires evaluating pain self-efficacy, it is a practical tool due to its brevity, possesses well-proven validity and reliability, and measures multiple domains of self-efficacy related to social and physical functioning. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (0: Not at all confident, 6: Completely confident). The total score ranges from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy for functionality despite pain. The validity and reliability study of the questionnaire has been conducted. | ClinicalTrials.gov |
Outcomes 0
Each outcome the trial posted results for, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.
| Type | Outcome | Time frame | Population | Units | Measured as | Source |
|---|
Results by group 0
Each measurement the trial posted, group by group, in the words and numbers it posted.
| Outcome | Group | Category | Value | Spread | Units | Source |
|---|
Participant flow 0
How many started, completed or left each group, period by period.
| Period | Milestone | Group | Participants | Units counted | Source |
|---|
Adverse events 0
Each adverse event the trial posted, group by group: the participants affected out of those at risk.
| Type | Event | Organ system | Group | Affected | At risk | Events | Source |
|---|
Adverse event totals 0
The totals the trial posted for each group.
| Total | Group | Affected | At risk | Source |
|---|
Papers 0
The papers the trial lists on ClinicalTrials.gov.
| PMID | Listed as | Source |
|---|
Grants 0
The grants NIH RePORTER links to the trial, newest funded first: NIH's, and some of AHRQ's, CDC's, FDA's and VA's. Each shows its title, principal investigators, organization and funder in its newest year.
| Project | Title | Principal investigators | Organization | Funder | Fiscal years | Source |
|---|
Trial comparisons 0
Comparisons of the trial's two groups, calculated by ConductScience from the counts it posted.
| Comparison | Source |
|---|
Tests 0
The ConductCognition tests this trial's registered outcomes name, as ScienceGraph matched them in trial-tests-2026-11-12-0.2.1.
| Test | Named as | Source |
|---|
Source 5
| Field | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Release | trials-2026-11-12-0.4.0 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Release manifest SHA-256 | 0f4a8d8c48aee2a7573ae0fa94ecbeab70c1adbe449bbc95c424bc7d3e97b9d4 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Registry capture | 2026-11-12 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Results copy, AACT | 2026-03-23 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| NIH clinical studies file | 2026-11-13 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
Release trials-2026-11-12-0.4.0
ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACT: ClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299 ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.
ClinicalTrials.gov: none stated ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.
NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project files: Public domain (NIH RePORTER)