Cited by 32Pediatric Pain Management TechniquesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Treatment

Development and feasibility testing of a Pain Neuroscience Education program for children with chronic pain: Treatment protocol

Open access
Pas, Roselien, Meeus, Mira, Malfliet, Anneleen, Baert, Isabel, Oosterwijck, Sophie Van, Leysen, Laurence, Nijs, Jo, Ickmans, Kelly·2018·Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy

Abstract

Background Current treatment for adults with chronic pain often includes Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) to make people understand the nature underlying their pain and thus provides a clear rational for a biopsychosocial approach. Despite recommendations to use Pain Neuroscience Education as well in children with chronic pain, a specific program, tailored to children aged 6-12 years is lacking.Objectives The aim of this study was to develop a Pain Neuroscience Education program for children with chronic pain and test its feasibility.Methods First the internet and scientific literature was searched for sources (e.g., books, videos, etc.) that might be supportive in teaching children about the neurophysiology of pain. Based on this content, we developed a Pain Neuroscience Education program for children, 'PNE4Kids', which was tested for feasibility in three groups of healthy children (n=18; 9 girls and 9 boys) aged between 6 and 12 years old.Results and conclusions This paper provides both scientists and clinicians with a specific program to explain the neurophysiology of pain to children with chronic pain, since it is past high time to use a modern neuroscience approach in this vulnerable population. Further research should examine the effectiveness of this developed PNE4Kids program on pain-related outcomes in children with chronic pain. Registration number: NCT02880332 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02880332).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.02.004

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Emerging brief psychological interventions for pediatric chronic pain are feasible, acceptable and effective in improving functioning and psychological well-being.

    “Emerging brief psychological interventions for pediatric chronic pain have been reported as being feasible, acceptable and effective in improving functioning and psychological well-being”

    From The Effect of a Brief Physician-Delivered Neurobiologically Oriented, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (Brief-CBT) Intervention on Chronic Pain Acceptance in Youth with Chronic Pain—A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2022) · cites this paper as [23]

    The state-of-the-art section reports that a review found psychological therapy effective at reducing pain intensity in children with chronic pain. The feasibility-testing section and Conclusion describe a brief PNE4Kids program piloted with healthy children, but the paper does not establish its acceptability or effectiveness in improving functioning or psychological well-being in children with chronic pain; the Conclusion says efficacy in that population had not yet been investigated. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pas, R., Meeus, M., Malfliet, A., Baert, I., Oosterwijck, S. V., Leysen, L., Nijs, J., & Ickmans, K.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
Corresponding author
Pas, Roselien
Venue
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
248-253
ISSN
1413-3555 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794389412
Cited by
32
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Berekuyl Academy/European College for Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy, the Netherlands
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pain neuroscience education, pediatric chronic pain, neurophysiology of pain, biopsychosocial model, feasibility, children aged 6-12
MeSH terms
Child, Clinical Protocols, Humans, Neurosciences, Chronic Pain, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review