AzTrials
AzTrials

Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)NCT07843706

Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC) to Improve Treatment Engagement Among Medicaid-insured Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain

A study testing Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC) in people with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP), run by Johns Hopkins University at 1 site in United States.

Not yet recruiting

Opening soon. The study is approved but enrolment has not started yet. Sites may already take enquiries.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a leading cause of disability, with socioeconomically disadvantaged populations experiencing worse outcomes and lower rates of treatment initiation for evidence-based pain psychology services. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 64 years
Conditions the study is for
Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
What is being tested?
Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC)
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
70 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
30 Nov 2026to 28 Feb 2029
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 64 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Chronic low back pain lasting at least 3 months and present at least half the days in the past 6 months, with an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of at least 24%
  • Medicaid insurance as primary or secondary coverage documented in the medical record, including eligible dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage
  • Able to complete study procedures in English
  • Able to participate in the telehealth clinical workflow and complete online questionnaires, with telephone assistance when needed

Who cannot join

  • Specific spinal pathology or medical condition requiring immediate intervention that makes study participation inappropriate
  • Currently receiving psychological treatment specifically for chronic pain at the time of screening
  • Lumbar spine surgery within the past 6 months
  • Severe psychiatric, cognitive, or substance-related condition that interferes with safe participation or meaningful consent
  • Enrollment in another interventional study for chronic low back pain that could confound study outcomes
  • Current cancer other than skin cancer

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Fenan S Rassu, Ph.D. contact

667-306-7983

frassu1@jhmi.edu

Rachel V Aaron, Ph.D. contact

667-306-7797

raaron4@jhmi.edu

United States1 site

  • Johns Hopkins Rehabilitation Psychology Clinic

    Baltimore, Maryland, 21205

    Fenan S Rass, Ph.D., 667-306-7983, frassu1@jhmi.edu

    Rachel V Aaron, Ph.D., 667-306-7797, raaron4@jhmi.edu

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC) to Improve Treatment Engagement Among Medicaid-insured Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a leading cause of disability, with socioeconomically disadvantaged populations experiencing worse outcomes and lower rates of treatment initiation for evidence-based pain psychology services. Participant engagement strategies such as shared decision-making (SDM) and motivational interviewing (MI) have shown promise in improving treatment uptake, but no study has examined whether integrating these approaches into a pain psychology evaluation can improve engagement among socioeconomically disadvantaged participants or offered participants a structured choice between cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET), presented to participants as Pain and Emotion Reprocessing Therapy (PERT). The Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC) intervention, a brief, psychologist-led engagement strategy combining SDM and MI within a standard pain psychology evaluation, was developed to address this gap.

Read the detailed description

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is among the leading causes of disability worldwide, affecting approximately 12.8 million adults in the United States. Individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) are disproportionately affected, with roughly twice the rate of developing cLBP compared with higher-SES populations. The investigator's prior work has shown that socioeconomically disadvantaged adults with cLBP report worse pain-related outcomes than more advantaged counterparts, underscoring the need for effective and accessible treatments in this population.

Clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacological approaches, including pain psychology, as first-line treatments for cLBP. Among the most established pain psychology treatments is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which targets maladaptive patterns of thinking and behavior that contribute to pain, disability, and distress. A growing evidence base also supports emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET), presented to participants in REACH as Pain and Emotion Reprocessing Therapy (PERT). EAET is grounded in contemporary pain neuroscience and addresses emotional experiences, stress, and interpersonal processes that may contribute to chronic pain.

Despite the availability of these treatments, a substantial proportion of participants referred for pain psychology do not initiate treatment, with reported initiation rates ranging from 24% to 73%. Preliminary findings from the OPTIMIZE trial, a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study of nonpharmacological treatments for cLBP conducted across three US health systems, indicate that only 59% of participants randomized to CBT initiated treatment, with socioeconomic factors such as neighborhood deprivation emerging as significant predictors of non-initiation. These findings suggest that socioeconomically disadvantaged participants face distinct barriers to engaging with psychological treatments for pain, and that simply offering effective treatments is insufficient if participants do not start treatments.

Participant engagement strategies have shown promise in improving treatment uptake. Shared decision-making (SDM) supports informed choices by presenting treatment options alongside benefits and trade-offs in a structured, collaborative conversation. Motivational interviewing (MI) supports motivation by exploring ambivalence and strengthening commitment in a non-confrontational manner. A prior trial by the investigator's team demonstrated that a single-session MI intervention delivered during a clinical encounter increased participation in physical therapy, reduced disability, and improved health outcomes among adults undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. More recently, the Equity Using Interventions for Pain and Depression (EQUIPD) pilot trial demonstrated that coaching paired with a decision aid to facilitate SDM about nonpharmacological pain treatments was feasible and showed improvements in shared decision-making, participant engagement, and therapeutic alliance among Black participants with chronic musculoskeletal pain. However, no study has examined whether integrating SDM and MI into a pain psychology evaluation can improve treatment initiation among socioeconomically disadvantaged participants, nor has any study offered participants a structured choice between CBT and EAET.

To address this gap, the Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC) intervention, a brief, psychologist-led engagement strategy designed to be embedded within a standard pain psychology evaluation, was developed. EPPAC combines MI techniques with a structured SDM framework to help participants understand how psychology relates to pain, explore whether treatment fits the participant's situation, and choose between CBT and EAET based on the participant's values and preferences. In participant-facing REACH materials, EAET is presented as Pain and Emotion Reprocessing Therapy (PERT). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of EPPAC compared with usual care among Medicaid-insured adults with cLBP in a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Being tested
Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC), Usual Care Pain Psychology Evaluation
Keywords
chronic low back pain, pain psychology, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, participant engagement, health disparities, Medicaid, pilot randomized controlled trial, cognitive behavioral therapy, emotional awareness and expression therapy

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC)Behavioural

    EPPAC is a brief, psychologist-led engagement strategy embedded within a standard pain psychology evaluation. It combines motivational interviewing and shared decision-making, structured pain education, a patient decision aid, two decision points, balanced discussion of CBT and EAET (presented to participants as PERT), and next-step planning to support informed engagement in pain psychology care.

  • Usual Care Pain Psychology EvaluationBehavioural

    Usual care consists of the clinic's standard pain psychology evaluation and usual discussion of clinical recommendations and treatment options. It does not include the EPPAC-specific decision aid, standardized EPPAC pain education, exact Decision Point 1 question, or EPPAC next-steps probe. CBT and EAET, presented to participants as PERT, are downstream clinical treatment options available in both study arms.

Study groups in NCT07843706
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC)ExperimentalParticipants receive the standard pain psychology evaluation followed by the structured EPPAC engagement and shared decision-making process during the same scheduled telehealth appointment. EPPAC helps participants decide whether pain psychology fits their treatment plan and, if treatment is selected, choose between cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET), presented to participants as Pain and Emotion Reprocessing Therapy (PERT). Subsequent CBT or EAET/PERT treatment is routine clinical care and is available in both study arms.
Receives: Behavioral: Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC)
Usual CareActive comparatorParticipants receive the standard pain psychology evaluation and the clinic's usual discussion of treatment recommendations and available options, without the EPPAC-specific structured elements. CBT and EAET, presented to participants as PERT, remain available as clinically appropriate. Subsequent treatment is routine clinical care.
Receives: Behavioral: Usual Care Pain Psychology Evaluation

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Percentage of participant and provider Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) responses with a mean score of 4 or greater

    The AIM is a 4-item measure scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree to 5 = Completely agree). A respondent-level mean score is calculated across the four items, with higher scores indicating greater acceptability. Participant and provider responses will be summarized separately. For this pilot, the prespecified study-defined acceptability benchmark is at least 70% of participant responses and at least 70% of provider responses with a mean AIM score of 4 or greater.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

  2. Percentage of participant and provider Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) responses with a mean score of 4 or greater

    The IAM is a 4-item measure scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree to 5 = Completely agree). A respondent-level mean score is calculated across the four items, with higher scores indicating greater perceived appropriateness. The percentage of responses with a mean score of 4 or greater will be reported separately for participants and providers and interpreted descriptively; no pass/fail appropriateness threshold is prespecified.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

  3. Proportion of EPPAC evaluations in which the required core EPPAC components were delivered as intended

    Fidelity will be assessed using structured provider-completed documentation in Epic indicating completion of the core EPPAC stages and intervention components. For this pilot, the prespecified study-defined feasibility benchmark is delivery of the required EPPAC components in at least 70% of EPPAC evaluation visits. Sessions will not be recorded or independently coded for fidelity.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

  4. Percentage of participant and provider Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) responses with a mean score of 4 or greater

    The FIM is a 4-item measure scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree to 5 = Completely agree). A respondent-level mean score is calculated across the four items, with higher scores indicating greater perceived feasibility. The percentage of responses with a mean score of 4 or greater will be reported separately for participants and providers and interpreted descriptively; the study's prespecified feasibility benchmark is based on EPPAC delivery fidelity rather than an FIM cutoff.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

Secondary outcomes (14)

  1. Percentage of randomized participants initiating pain psychology treatment by 12 weeks

    Treatment initiation is defined as attendance at least one cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET; presented to participants as PERT) treatment session documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) within 12 weeks. The denominator is all randomized participants, consistent with the intent-to-treat approach.

    Measured: 12 weeks

  2. Total number of treatment sessions attended (out of 8 sessions)

    Total number of treatment sessions attended will be determined using the EMR.

    Measured: 12 weeks

  3. Participant's choice of treatment

    Participant treatment decision at the end of the evaluation workflow, categorized as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET; presented to participants as PERT), or no treatment selected, assessed by randomized arm.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

  4. Percentage of treatment initiators who discontinue treatment before completing 6 sessions

    Among participants who initiate pain psychology treatment by attending at least one CBT or EAET/PERT session, treatment dropout is defined as discontinuing before completion of 6 treatment sessions within the 12-week treatment-engagement period. Treatment attendance will be determined using the EMR.

    Measured: 12 weeks

  5. The frequency of participants who stated a preference for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Emotional Awareness and Expression Therapy (EAET; presented to participants as PERT), or were unsure.

    Participants' stated treatment preference will be assessed using a single item completed prior to completion of the decisional conflict measure.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

  6. Percentage of participants with decisional conflict on the Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, Encouragement (SURE) test

    The SURE test is a 4-item binary screening measure derived from the Decisional Conflict Scale. Each item is scored 0 or 1, yielding a total score from 0 to 4. A score of 4 (better) indicates no decisional conflict; scores of 0 to 3 indicate decisional conflict.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

  7. CollaboRATE shared decision-making score

    CollaboRATE is a 3-item participant-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort was made) to 4 (every effort was made), yielding a total score from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making. A top score is defined as the highest response on all three items and may also be reported as the proportion of participants achieving a top score.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

  8. Participant openness to future engagement, assessed by arm and by treatment initiation status.

    Participant openness to future engagement, assessed with an investigator-developed single item: "If my situation changes in the future, I would consider working with a psychologist for my pain." This item is rated on a 5-point agreement scale with higher scores indicating greater levels of openness to future engagement.

    Measured: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment

  9. Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-Two-Item Short Form (PSEQ-2)

    The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 2-item short form (PSEQ-2) assesses confidence in performing activities despite pain. Total scores range from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating greater pain self-efficacy.

    Measured: Baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks

  10. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)

    The Oswestry Disability Index is a 10-item measure of low back pain-related disability across pain intensity and daily activities. Each item is scored from 0 to 5. The item scores are summed and converted to a percentage disability score ranging from 0% to 100%, with higher scores indicating greater disability.

    Measured: Screening, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks

  11. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29+2 Profile v2.1 (PROPr))

    The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29+2 Profile v2.1 [PROPr]) assesses 8 domains: Physical Function, Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities, Pain Interference, and Cognitive Function-Abilities, in addition to a Pain Intensity item. The multi-item domains use 5-category response scales and are converted to standardized T-scores (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10); the Pain Intensity item is scored from 0 to 10. Higher T-scores indicate more of the construct being measured. For symptom domains such as Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, and Pain Interference, higher scores indicate worse symptoms; for Physical Function and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities, higher scores indicate better functioning.

    Measured: Baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks

  12. University of Washington Concerns About Pain Scale (UW-CAP) 6-item short form))

    The University of Washington Concerns About Pain Scale 6-item short form (UW-CAP-6) assesses pain catastrophizing, described in the instrument as concerns about pain. Each item uses five response options coded from 1 to 5. The six item codes are summed only as an intermediate raw score (range 6 to 30) and then converted using the published concordance table to an item response theory (IRT)-based T-score. The T-score, rather than the raw sum, will be reported and analyzed. Higher T-scores indicate greater concerns about pain; the calibration metric has a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10.

    Measured: Baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks

  13. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)

    The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) is a single-item participant-reported measure of overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions, and quality of life related to the painful condition. Responses are rated on a 7-point scale from 1 = No change (or condition has gotten worse) to 7 = A great deal better, with higher scores indicating greater perceived improvement. Scores of 5, 6, and 7 correspond to moderately better, better, and a great deal better, respectively.

    Measured: 12 weeks and 24 weeks

  14. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST)

    The STarT (Subgroups for Targeted Treatment) Back Screening Tool (SBST) was developed as a risk stratification tool for future persistent disabling low back pain. This tool is comprised of 9 items (scored 0 or 1 point). Scores range from 0 to 9. Participants with scores of 3 or lower may have a low risk for future persistent disabling low back pain and related activity limitations. Participants with scores of 4 or higher have an increased risk for these same outcomes. There is also a Psychosocial Distress Subscore that distinguishes between medium and high risk subgroups, based on the last five items of the tool. Participants with a Distress Subscore of 0-3 points are categorized as medium risk and those with a Distress Subscore of 4 or higher are considered high risk for persistent disabling back pain.

    Measured: Baseline

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted28 Sep 2026
  2. Study start30 Nov 2026 (estimated)
  3. Primary completion31 Aug 2028 (estimated)
  4. Study completion28 Feb 2029 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
Participants are randomized 1:1 to EPPAC or usual care. The same trained psychologists may deliver both conditions based on routine clinical availability.
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
70 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07843706
Sponsor's protocol ID
IRB00520129
Other IDs
K23MD019351
Status last verified
Oct 2026
First submitted
21 Sep 2026
Last updated
26 Oct 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: De-identified data will be deposited in the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). The dataset will consist of: participant study identification number, treatment arm assignment, coarsened demographic variables (age range, sex, race and ethnicity, insurance type), responses to validated survey instruments at each assessment timepoint, session attendance counts, and treatment initiation and completion status. During the oral consent process, the study coordinator asks each participant whether the participant agrees to have their de-identified data deposited in a public research data repository. The response is recorded in REDCap at the time of consent. Participants who decline are enrolled and participate in all study activities without restriction; their records are flagged and excluded from the deposit.

Publications

  • Fritz, J., Rassu, F., Aaron, R., Minick, K., Brennan, G., Wegener, S. T., Thackeray, A., McLaughlin, K., & Skolasky, R. (2025, December 15). Factors Influencing Initiation of Evidence-Based Nonpharmacological Treatments for Chronic Low Back Pain within Health Systems. 18th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation. https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2025di/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/75964

  • Dowell D, Ragan KR, Jones CM, Baldwin GT, Chou R. CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2022 Nov 4;71(3):1-95. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7103a1.

    PubMed 36327391

  • Williams ACC, Fisher E, Hearn L, Eccleston C. Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 12;8(8):CD007407. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub4.

    PubMed 32794606

  • GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1211-1259. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2.

    PubMed 28919117

  • Skolasky RL, Maggard AM, Li D, Riley LH 3rd, Wegener ST. Health behavior change counseling in surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: improvement in rehabilitation engagement and functional outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Jul;96(7):1200-7. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.03.009. Epub 2015 Mar 28.

    PubMed 25827657

  • Skolasky RL, Wegener ST, Aaron RV, Ephraim P, Brennan G, Greene T, Lane E, Minick K, Hanley AW, Garland EL, Fritz JM. The OPTIMIZE study: protocol of a pragmatic sequential multiple assessment randomized trial of nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic, nonspecific low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 May 11;21(1):293. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03324-z.

    PubMed 32393216

  • Shmagel A, Foley R, Ibrahim H. Epidemiology of Chronic Low Back Pain in US Adults: Data From the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Nov;68(11):1688-1694. doi: 10.1002/acr.22890.

    PubMed 26991822

  • Rassu FS, McFadden M, Aaron RV, Wegener ST, Ephraim PL, Lane E, Brennan G, Minick KI, Fritz JM, Skolasky RL. The Relationship Between Neighborhood Deprivation and Perceived Changes for Pain-Related Experiences Among US Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Pain Med. 2021 Nov 26;22(11):2550-2565. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnab179.

    PubMed 34181008

  • Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians; Denberg TD, Barry MJ, Boyd C, Chow RD, Fitterman N, Harris RP, Humphrey LL, Vijan S. Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 4;166(7):514-530. doi: 10.7326/M16-2367. Epub 2017 Feb 14.

    PubMed 28192789

  • Putrik P, Ramiro S, Orueta JF, Keszei A, Alonso Moran E, Nuno Solinis R, Boonen A. Socio-economic inequalities in occurrence and health care costs in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: results from a Spanish population-based study including 1.9 million persons. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2018 Jul-Aug;36(4):589-594. Epub 2018 Jan 31.

    PubMed 29465359

  • Matthias MS, Burgess DJ, Daggy JK, Donnelly CE, Flores P, Fowler NR, Garabrant J, Henry N, Henry SG, Huffman M, Kavuri PJ, Ofner S, Perry C, Rand KL, Robles M, Salyers MP, Taylor SL, Hirsh AT. Equity Using Interventions for Pain and Depression (EQUIPD): A pilot randomized trial. J Pain. 2025 Apr;29:105353. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105353. Epub 2025 Feb 25.

    PubMed 40010678

  • Lumley MA, Schubiner H. Psychological Therapy for Centralized Pain: An Integrative Assessment and Treatment Model. Psychosom Med. 2019 Feb/Mar;81(2):114-124. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000654.

    PubMed 30461545

  • Lawrence P, Fulbrook P, Somerset S, Schulz P. Motivational interviewing to enhance treatment attendance in mental health settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017 Nov;24(9-10):699-718. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12420. Epub 2017 Sep 14.

    PubMed 28816412

  • Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, Ferreira PH, Fritz JM, Koes BW, Peul W, Turner JA, Maher CG; Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2368-2383. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6. Epub 2018 Mar 21.

    PubMed 29573872

  • Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, Cording E, Tomson D, Dodd C, Rollnick S, Edwards A, Barry M. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1361-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6. Epub 2012 May 23.

    PubMed 22618581

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Empowering Pain Psychology Access and Collaboration (EPPAC) in people with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP), run by Johns Hopkins University at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Fenan S Rassu, Ph.D. (667-306-7983, frassu1@jhmi.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Percentage of participant and provider Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) responses with a mean score of 4 or greater (time frame: Immediately following the initial evaluation appointment). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07843706, which also lists 19 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Oct 2026.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in