Teaching Patients About Pain: The Emergence of Pain Science Education, its Learning Frameworks and Delivery Strategies.

Since it emerged in the early 2000's, intensive education about 'how pain works', widely known as pain neuroscience education or explaining pain, has evolved into a new educational approach, with new content and new strategies. The substantial differences from the original have led the PETAL collaboration to call the current iteration 'Pain Science Education'. This review presents a brief historical context for Pain Science Education, the clinical trials, consumer perspective, and real-world clinical data that have pushed the field to update both content and method. We describe the key role of educational psychology in driving this change, the central role of constructivism, and the constructivist learning frameworks around which Pain Science Education is now planned and delivered. We integrate terminology and concepts from the learning frameworks currently being used across the PETAL collaboration in both research and practice-the Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive framework, transformative learning theory, and dynamic model of conceptual change. We then discuss strategies that are being used to enhance learning within clinical encounters, which focus on the skill, will, and thrill of learning. Finally, we provide practical examples of these strategies so as to assist the reader to drive their own patient pain education offerings towards more effective learning. PERSPECTIVE: Rapid progress in several fields and research groups has led to the emergence 'Pain Science Education'. This PETAL review describes challenges that have spurred the field forward, the learning frameworks and educational strategies that are addressing those challenges, and some easy wins to implement and mistakes to avoid.

Knowledge and attitudes toward musculoskeletal pain neuroscience of manual therapy postgraduate students in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Health care practitioners' knowledge and attitudes influence patients' beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. It is unclear to what extent physiotherapists undertaking a postgraduate master in manual therapy (MT students) possess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience to be able to apply the biopsychosocial model in patients with MSK pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHOD: Self-reported knowledge and attitudes were measured among students (n = 662) at baseline and in all years of the MT postgraduate programs in the Netherlands. The Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain questionnaire (KNAP) was used as a primary measure. Difference in KNAP-scores between baseline (0), year 1, year 2 and year 3 was tested using a one-way ANOVA (hypothesis: 0 < 1<2 < 3). A two factor ANOVA was used to determine the interaction effect of focused pain education and year in the curriculum with KNAP. RESULTS: There was an overall significant difference of KNAP scores with a medium effect size (F(3, 218.18) = 13.56, p < .001, ω2 = 0.059). Differences between years ranged from small to medium. Interaction effect of knowledge and attitudes and focused pain education was significant with a small effect size (F(6) = 2.597, p = .017, ω2 = 0.012). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results. CONCLUSIONS: Positive differences in knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students occur between the progressing years of the curriculum. Differences may be related to the provision of focused pain education.

Assessing future health care practitioners' knowledge and attitudes of musculoskeletal pain; development and measurement properties of a new questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare practitioner beliefs influence patients' beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. A validated questionnaire based on modern pain neuroscience assessing Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain (KNAP) was unavailable. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and test measurement properties of KNAP. DESIGN: Phase 1; Development of KNAP reflecting modern pain neuroscience and expert opinion. Phase 2; a cross-sectional and longitudinal study among Dutch physiotherapy students. METHOD: In the cross-sectional study (n = 424), internal consistency, structural validity, hypotheses testing, and Rasch analysis were examined. Longitudinal designs were applied to analyse test-retest reliability (n = 156), responsiveness, and interpretability (n = 76). RESULTS: A 30-item KNAP was developed in 4 stages. Test-retest reliability: ICC (2,1) 0.80. Internal consistency: Cronbach's α 0.80. Smallest Detectable Difference 90%: 4.99 (4.31; 5.75). Structural validity: exploratory factor analysis showed 2 factors. Hypotheses testing: associations with the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists biopsychosocial subscale r = 0.60, with biomedical subscale r = -0.58, with the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire r = 0.52. Responsiveness: 93% improved on KNAP after studying pain education. Minimal Important Change: 4.84 (95%CI: 2.77; 6.91). CONCLUSIONS: The KNAP has adequate measurement properties. This new questionnaire could be useful to evaluate physiotherapy students' knowledge and attitudes of modern pain neuroscience that could help to create awareness and evaluate physiotherapy education programs, and ultimately provide better pain management.

History taking by physiotherapists with low back pain patients: are illness perceptions addressed properly?

PURPOSE: Despite the increasing evidence that illness perceptions should be addressed in patients, there is a lack of studies evaluating whether physiotherapists question illness perceptions. This study, using a mixed-methods design, investigates the integration of illness perceptions during the first consultation of physiotherapists treating patients with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Thirty-four physiotherapists performed usual history taking in a patient with non-specific LBP. The interview was audiotaped and illness perceptions were indexed using an observational instrument, based on the domains of Leventhal's Common Sense Model. Patients were also asked to fill in the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised for LBP. RESULTS: Physiotherapists assessed the illness identity, also perceptions regarding the (physical) cause and controllability of LBP were evaluated. Illness perceptions, such as timeline, consequences, coherence and emotional representation, were poorly assessed. Results of the questionnaire reveal that LBP-patients report overuse, workload and bad posture as primary cause. Patients held positive beliefs about the controllability and have high illness coherence. CONCLUSION: Belgian physiotherapists mainly question bio-medically oriented illness perceptions, e.g. physical symptoms and causes, but do not sufficiently address psychosocially oriented illness perceptions as recommended in LBP guidelines. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Belgian physiotherapists mainly question biomedical oriented illness perceptions (illness identity, provoking factors and treatment control) in patients with low back pain (LBP) during the history taking (i.e. the first consultation). From a bio-psycho-social view psychosocially oriented illness perceptions should be incorporated in the daily routine of physiotherapist's to comply with the bio-psycho-social treatment guidelines for LBP. Continuing education is mandatory in order to improve physiotherapists' knowledge regarding the use of all dimensions of illness perceptions in the assessment of patients with LBP.