Cited by 53Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPain Mechanisms and Treatments

An exploration of the extent and nature of reconceptualisation of pain following pain neurophysiology education: A qualitative study of experiences of people with chronic musculoskeletal pain

Open access
King, Rick, Robinson, Victoria, Ryan, Cormac G., Martin, Denis J.·2016·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective Pain neurophysiology education (PNE), a method of pain education, purports to work by helping patients reconceptualise their pain, shifting from a tissue injury model towards a biopsychosocial understanding related to neural sensitivity. Better understanding of pain reconceptualisation following PNE is needed to improve the delivery of this educational approach to enhance its effectiveness. This study aimed to investigate the extent and nature of reconceptualisation following PNE.Methods In a qualitative design, based on Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis, thematic analysis was carried out on individual interviews with 7 adults before and three weeks after receiving PNE at a pain clinic.Results Three themes emerged describing variable degrees of reconceptualisation; prior beliefs as facilitators and barriers to reconceptualisation; and the influence of reconceptualisation on clinical benefits of PNE.Conclusion The results lend support to claims that reconceptualisation is an important mechanism in PNE and justify further investigation of this phenomenon.Practical implications When delivering PNE to patients with chronic pain helping patients to reconceptualise their pain may be key to enhancing the clinical benefits of the intervention. Understanding prior beliefs may be an important step in facilitating reconceptualisation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2016.03.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 53

Authors
King, R., Robinson, V., Ryan, C. G., & Martin, D. J.
Affiliations
  • James Cook University Hospital (GB)
  • Teesside University (GB)
Corresponding author
Ryan, Cormac G.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
99
Issue
8
Pages
1389-1393
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2296994374
Cited by
53
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
chronic musculoskeletal pain, pain beliefs, biopsychosocial model of pain, neuronal sensitivity, pain education, patient experience, pain clinic
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Neurophysiology, Patient Education as Topic, Qualitative Research, Chronic Pain, Musculoskeletal 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