Background Chronic low back pain (CLBP) affects many globally. This study explored potential effects of an augmented reality (AR) intervention combining psychoeducation and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)-body scan. The pilot study investigated pain intensity and pain-related outcomes, focusing on AR intervention versus conventional methods, aiming to establish a foundation for future confirmatory trials. Methods In a pilot study, an AR intervention was compared to a conventional intervention of equivalent duration and content. A two-way mixed-design ANOVA (time: pre vs. post) with one between-subjects factor (group: IG vs. CG) was performed. The AR intervention group (IG) used Microsoft HoloLens 2 for psychoeducation and an MBSR-body scan in a simulated forest; the control group (CG) read a corresponding psychoeducational text and listened to MBSR audio. The primary outcome was pain intensity; secondary outcomes were catastrophizing, self-efficacy, stress, and depression symptoms. Forty-four participants with mild CLBP (< ;4; scale 1–10) were in IG (n1 = 22, men = 9, women = 13; Mage = 39.63, range = 20–67) and CG (n2 = 22, men = 6, women = 16; Mage = 41.81, range = 21–70). Results Pain intensity (F(1,42) = 29.783, p = 0.001, n2p = 0.415), pain catastrophizing (F(1,42) = 27.954, p < 0.001, n2p = 0.400), and stress (F(1,42) = 20.656, p < 0.001, n2p = 0.335) decreased in both groups. Self-efficacy (F(1,42) = 0.293, p = 0.591, n2p = 0.07) and depression (F(1,42) = 0.796, p = 0.377, n2p = 0.019) remained unchanged. No significant time × group interaction effects were observed. Discussion In this exploratory pilot study, results show reduced pain intensity and pain-related outcomes in both groups, with no differences between them. Conclusions about the AR intervention’s efficacy cannot be drawn, but findings indicate responsiveness in both interventions. The AR intervention appears feasible and acceptable, encouraging further investigations. Trial registration: Open Science Framework: <a href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XVJBZ">https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XVJBZ</a>

Piloting of Augmented Reality-Based Psychoeducation with Mindfulness Intervention for Chronic Low Back Pain

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年5月28日

查看全文

Robin Conen,
Nikolai Hepke,
Jörg Lohscheller,
Steffen Mueller,
Ana N. Tibubos

摘要

Background

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) affects many globally. This study explored potential effects of an augmented reality (AR) intervention combining psychoeducation and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)-body scan. The pilot study investigated pain intensity and pain-related outcomes, focusing on AR intervention versus conventional methods, aiming to establish a foundation for future confirmatory trials.

Methods

In a pilot study, an AR intervention was compared to a conventional intervention of equivalent duration and content. A two-way mixed-design ANOVA (time: pre vs. post) with one between-subjects factor (group: IG vs. CG) was performed. The AR intervention group (IG) used Microsoft HoloLens 2 for psychoeducation and an MBSR-body scan in a simulated forest; the control group (CG) read a corresponding psychoeducational text and listened to MBSR audio. The primary outcome was pain intensity; secondary outcomes were catastrophizing, self-efficacy, stress, and depression symptoms. Forty-four participants with mild CLBP (< ;4; scale 1–10) were in IG (n₁ = 22, men = 9, women = 13; M_age = 39.63, range = 20–67) and CG (n₂ = 22, men = 6, women = 16; M_age = 41.81, range = 21–70).

Results

Pain intensity (F(1,42) = 29.783, p = 0.001, n²_p = 0.415), pain catastrophizing (F(1,42) = 27.954, p < 0.001, n²_p = 0.400), and stress (F(1,42) = 20.656, p < 0.001, n²_p = 0.335) decreased in both groups. Self-efficacy (F(1,42) = 0.293, p = 0.591, n²_p = 0.07) and depression (F(1,42) = 0.796, p = 0.377, n²_p = 0.019) remained unchanged. No significant time × group interaction effects were observed.

Discussion

In this exploratory pilot study, results show reduced pain intensity and pain-related outcomes in both groups, with no differences between them. Conclusions about the AR intervention’s efficacy cannot be drawn, but findings indicate responsiveness in both interventions. The AR intervention appears feasible and acceptable, encouraging further investigations.

Trial registration: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XVJBZ