Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Jun 1;177(6):765-773.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0223.

Interactive Voice Response-Based Self-management for Chronic Back Pain: The COPES Noninferiority Randomized Trial

Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Interactive Voice Response-Based Self-management for Chronic Back Pain: The COPES Noninferiority Randomized Trial

Alicia A Heapy et al. JAMA Intern Med. .
Free PMC article


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: Identifier: NCT01025752.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Heapy and Higgins reported receiving consulting fees from Magellan Health for the development of a web-based CBT program for chronic pain. No other disclosures are reported.


Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Participant Flow Through Trial Comparing IVR-CBT With In-Person CBT for Back Pain
aPatients who had at least 1 postbaseline assessment. BDI-II indicates Beck Depression Inventory II; CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy; IVR, interactive voice response; MINI, Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Version 6.0.0; SLUMS, Saint Louis University Mental Status examination.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Number of Treatment Weeks by Condition
CBT indicates cognitive behavioral therapy; IVR, interactive voice response.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Possible Scenarios and Observed Results of the Noninferiority Test
Error bars represent 2-sided 95% CIs. A CI that lies entirely to the left of zero indicates the new treatment (CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy; IVR, interactive voice response [IVR-CBT]) is superior. A CI that lies to the left of the noninferiority margin of 1 indicates that the new treatment is noninferior. A CI that includes the noninferiority margin indicates that the result regarding noninferiority is inconclusive. A CI that is entirely above the noninferiority margin indicates the new treatment is inferior. Figure and explanation adapted from Piaggio et al.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 11 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

Associated data