Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Teaching patients about pain: The emergence of Pain Science Education, its learning frameworks and delivery strategies.

  • G Lorimer Moseley (First author)
  • , Hayley B. Leake
  • , Anneke J. Beetsma
  • , James A. Watson
  • , David Butler
  • , Annika van der Mee
  • , Jennifer N Stinson
  • , Daniel Harvie
  • , Tonya M Palermo
  • , Mira Meeus
  • , Cormac G Ryan
  • IIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, Kaurna Country, Adelaide, Australia
  • Centre for Rehabilitation, School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
  • Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children and Lawrence S. Bloomberg, Faculty of Nursing, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • MOVANT research group, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Antwerp, Belgium
  • The Pain Education Team Aspiring Learning (PETAL) Collaboration
  • North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Pain
Volume25
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2024

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 03 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 03 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • active learning
  • constructivism
  • deep learning
  • educational psychology
  • explain pain

Research Focus Areas Hanze University of Applied Sciences * (mandatory by Hanze)

  • Healthy Ageing

Research Focus Areas Research Centre or Centre of Expertise * (mandatory by Hanze)

  • Frailty and adequate care

Publinova themes

  • Other

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Teaching patients about pain: The emergence of Pain Science Education, its learning frameworks and delivery strategies.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this