Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness, compared with usual care, of an interactive online group programme combining pain neuroscience education (PNE) and graded exposure to movement (GEM) for improving quality of life and pain experience in breast cancer survivors with chronic pain. Methods This single-blind randomised controlled trial included a sample of 49 breast cancer survivors who were randomly assigned to two groups (experimental: n  = 22 and control: n  = 27). The experimental group received a 12-week person-centred online programme based on pain neuroscience education and therapeutic yoga as gradual exposure to movement, while the control group continued with their usual care. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACT–B + 4); the secondary outcomes were related to the experience of chronic pain (pain intensity, pain interference, catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, and fear avoidance behaviours). All variables were assessed at four time points (T0, baseline; T1, after PNE sessions; T2, after yoga sessions; T3, at 3-month follow-up). For data analysis, ANOVA (2 × 4) analysis of variance (95% CI) was used when outcomes were normally distributed. If not, within-group and between-group comparisons were calculated. Results Thirty-six participants were included in the analysis (control group, 22; experimental group, 14). A significant time * group effect was observed in favour of the experimental group regarding the global quality of life score ( p  = 0.010, η p 2  = 0.124). Significant differences in favour of the experimental group were observed for pain intensity, pain interference, catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy. These differences persisted at follow-up. Conclusions An online intervention based on PNE and GEM appears to be more effective than usual care for improving quality of life in breast cancer survivors with chronic pain, as a time per group interaction was reported. In addition, the intervention also significantly improved the participants’ experience of chronic pain. However, due to the study limitations further research is needed. Trial record: NCT04965909 (26/06/2021).

\"A feminist view of the intimate stranger that is the brain, and an overdue reckoning with the misogyny and racism within neuroscience\"-- Provided by publisher.

To optimize the efficacy of analgesia for patients receiving laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, peri-operative pain neuroscience education (PNE) as a pain-specific cognitive therapy was incorporated into multi-modal analgesia. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare conventional analgesia (group CA) and the addition of pain neuroscience education into it (group PNE) in patients receiving laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Characteristics of peri-operative pain was evaluated with Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire (DN-4), central sensitization inventory (CSI), pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) post-operatively and pressure pain threshold. Post-operative quality of recovery was measured with EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). The incidence of chronic post-operative pain was also recorded. A total of 184 patients consented to participate in this study and finished follow-up. Compared with those receiving conventional analgesia (group CA, N  = 91), patients in group PNE ( N  = 93) reported reduced incidence of moderate-to-severe pain and less dosages of opioid during hospitalization ( p  < 0.05). Catastrophing, sensitization related to pain were reduced in group PNE ( p  < 0.05). Quality of recovery was improved till 1 month after surgery ( p  < 0.05). The addition of pain neuroscience education improved analgesic effect and quality of recovery for patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. It also helped reduce sensitization and catastrophic of acute surgical pain. This psychologically-oriented analgesic approach merits future research and application for these patients.

Background and Objectives: Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) persists beyond 12 weeks. Manual therapy recommended for CNLBP demonstrates short-term efficacy. Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) teaches patients to modify pain perception through explanations, metaphors, and examples, targeting brain re-education. Motivational Interviewing (MI) enhances motivation for behavioral change, steering patients away from ambivalence and uncertainty. These approaches collectively address the multifaceted nature of CNLBP for effective management. The aim of this study was to investigate a manual therapy intervention combined with PNE with MI on pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT), disability, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, and low back functional ability in individuals experiencing CNLBP. Materials and Methods: Sixty adults with CNLBP were randomly divided into three equal groups (each n = 20). The first group received manual therapy and PNE with integrated MI (combined therapy group), the second group underwent only manual therapy (manual therapy group), and the third group followed a general exercise program at home (control group). Pain in the last 24 h was assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), functional ability with the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), PPT in the lumbar region through pressure algometry, kinesiophobia with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), catastrophizing with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and performance using the Back Performance Scale (BPS) at baseline, in the fourth week, and six months post-intervention. Results: Statistically significant differences between the intervention groups and the control group were found in both the fourth-week measurement and the six-month follow-up, as evident in the NPRS and RMDQ scores, as well as in the total values of tested PPTs (p < 0.05). Differences were also observed between the two intervention groups, with a statistically greater improvement in the combined therapy group at both time points (fourth week and six-month follow-up) (p < 0.05). Regarding the TSK and PCS scores in the fourth week, statistically significant differences were observed between the two intervention groups compared to the control group, as well as between the two intervention groups (p < 0.05). However, in the six-month follow-up, statistically significant differences were found only between the combined therapy group and the other two groups, with the combined therapy group showing significant improvements (p < 0.05). In relation to BPS, both intervention groups exhibited statistically significant differences compared to the control group in the fourth week, without any significant differences between the two intervention groups. However, in the six-month follow-up, significant differences were noted between the combined therapy group and the other two groups (p < 0.05), with combined therapy demonstrating greater improvement. Conclusions: The addition of PNE with integrated MI enhanced the positive effects of a manual therapy intervention in all outcome measures. The combination of manual therapy plus PNE with integrated MI appeared to provide greater improvements compared to the isolated application of manual therapy, and these improvements also lasted longer. These short- and long-term positive effects are likely attributed to the combination of PNE with integrated MI, which contributed to increasing the effectiveness of the treatment. Further studies are required to investigate the optimum dosage of manual therapy and PNE with integrated MI in individuals with CNLBP.

Objective: The objective was to compare the effectiveness of a combined pain neuroscience education and resistance training program (PNE + RT) with that of a combined aerobic and flexibility exercise program (AE + FE). Design: A randomized pilot study was conducted in women with fibromyalgia. Methods: Thirty‐one women with fibromyalgia were randomized into the experimental group (PNE + RT, n = 15) and the usual care group (AE + FE, n = 16). Both groups carried out the intervention 3 days a week for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and symptoms related to central sensitization (CS). Among them, pain intensity was considered the main primary endpoint for statistical analysis and interpretation. Secondary outcomes were pressure pain threshold (PPT), maximum handgrip strength (MHS), and stiffness. Results: Statistically significant between‐group differences were found in favor of PNE + RT group for short‐term pain intensity ( p < 0.05) and PPT trapezius ( p < 0.05). PNE + RT also showed statistically significant within‐group improvements in pain intensity ( p < 0.01), CS‐related symptoms ( p < 0.01), PPT quadriceps ( p < 0.01), and MHS of the left hand ( p < 0.01). Disability improved significantly in both groups ( p < 0.01). There were no significant changes in stiffness. Conclusion: The PNE + RT program is more effective than the AE + FE program in improving pain intensity in the short term and PPT in the trapezius muscle in the long term. PNE + RT is also effective in improving disability, pain intensity, CS‐related symptoms (short and long term), and left MHS and PPT in the quadriceps muscle (long term), although it is not more effective than AE + FE. The AE + FE program is only effective in improving disability. These findings are preliminary, and larger studies are needed to confirm the results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04855851

Priming the neural circuity likely targeted by pain neuroscience education (PNE), using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may enhance the efficacy of PNE. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of active tDCS + PNE to sham tDCS + PNE on measures of pain, pain behaviors, and cognitive function in participants with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and high pain catastrophizing. 20 participants were recruited and randomly allocated into the active tDCS + PNE (n = 10) or sham tDCS + PNE (n = 10) groups. All participants received five sessions of their assigned interventions over a 2-week period. The active tDCS + PNE group received 20 min of 2 mA, anodal current applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Within groups, both interventions demonstrated significant improvement in NPRS, PCS, and TSK. The active tDCS + PNE group also demonstrated significant improvement in the SCWT, CTMT2-Inhibitory, and CTMT2-Set Shifting. Between groups, the active tDCS + PNE group showed significantly greater improvement on the PCS, SCWT, and CTMT2-Inhibitory. The results of this pilot study suggest that active tDCS + PNE appeared to provide greater improvement than sham tDCS + PNE on levels of pain catastrophizing and attentional interference in participants with CLBP and high pain catastrophizing, consistent with both interventions targeting brain regions involved in those processes. Considering the differences between groups, tDCS appears to provide a priming effect on PNE. This article presents evidence of a priming effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on pain neuroscience education in participants with chronic low back pain and high pain catastrophizing. The findings support that the combination of interventions improves pain behavior and cognitive function greater than pain neuroscience education alone. NCT05571215, The Effect of Combining Pain Neuroscience Education and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Pain Catastrophizing, Kinesiophobia, and Pain in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain, https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05571215.

Background Chronic spinal pain affects many in the United States and is associated with rising healthcare costs - but not improved outcomes. Education and self-care promotion are hallmarks of the recommended approach for this condition. Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) is a method of educating patients about the neurophysiology of pain that aims to reconceptualize pain from an indicator of damage to an interpretation of input signals by the brain and nervous system. PNE has shown efficacy in controlled situations when delivered by experts, but its effectiveness has not been investigated among trained clinicians in a pragmatic setting. Methods A cluster randomized trial will randomly assign 16 clinic regions to either receive PNE training or continue with usual care. Patients with chronic neck or back pain will be enrolled to provide outcome data. Measures will be collected at baseline, 2 weeks, and 12 weeks. The primary outcome will be the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function computer-adapted test (PF-CAT). Pre-specified statistical analyses will compare outcomes between clinic regions assigned to PNE treatment or usual care while using random effects to account for region-level clustering. Discussion Pain Neuroscience Education has been shown efficacious for a variety of patient-centered outcomes for those with chronic pain, but it has not yet been investigated outside of controlled settings. This trial has the potential to promote PNE as a low-cost intervention for chronic spinal pain and affect physical therapy education. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03168165 , registered May 30, 2017.

Background Physician empathy is an essential attribute of the patient–physician relationship and is associated with better outcomes, greater patient safety and fewer malpractice claims. Objective We tested whether an innovative empathy training protocol grounded in neuroscience could improve physician empathy as rated by patients. Design Randomized controlled trial. Intervention We randomly assigned residents and fellows from surgery, medicine, anesthesiology, psychiatry, ophthalmology, and orthopedics (N = 99, 52% female, mean age 30.6 ± 3.6) to receive standard post-graduate medical education or education augmented with three 60-minute empathy training modules. Main Measure Patient ratings of physician empathy were assessed within one-month pre-training and between 1–2 months post-training with the use of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure. Each physician was rated by multiple patients (pre-mean = 4.6 ± 3.1; post-mean 4.9 ± 2.5), who were blinded to physician randomization. The primary outcome was change score on the patient-rated CARE. Key Results The empathy training group showed greater changes in patient-rated CARE scores than the control (difference 2.2; P = 0.04). Trained physicians also showed greater changes in knowledge of the neurobiology of empathy (difference 1.8; P < 0.001) and in ability to decode facial expressions of emotion (difference 1.9; P < 0.001). Conclusions A brief intervention grounded in the neurobiology of empathy significantly improved physician empathy as rated by patients, suggesting that the quality of care in medicine could be improved by integrating the neuroscience of empathy into medical education.