ArticlePeerJ2025
Education about pain and experience with cognitive-based interventions do not reduce healthcare professionals' chronic pain.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive-based interventions like pain neuroscience education (PNE), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness meditation are popular for managing chronic pain. Despite their widespread adoption, evidence for their efficacy remains contradictory. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) represent a unique population to evaluate these approaches, as they possess specialized knowledge about pain mechanisms and often implement these interventions with patients. The logical premise underlying cognitive-based interventions suggests that increased knowledge and cognitive engagement with pain concepts should reduce pain intensity, making educated HCPs with chronic pain an ideal test case for this theoretical framework. Purpose: To investigate whether HCPs with chronic pain who (HCPs+CP) are familiar with these methods experience less pain and improved quality of life compared to less experienced HCPs+CP and healthy HCPs (H-HCPs). Methods: This cross-sectional study used an anonymous online questionnaire distributed in English through closed professional social media groups internationally. Data were collected from 550 HCPs (319 healthy, 231 with chronic pain) primarily from Israel, Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Participants were categorized by their knowledge of pain neuroscience, experience with cognitive-based interventions, and chronic pain type (primary or secondary). Pain intensity was measured using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale, and quality of life was assessed with the World Health Organization tool the WHOQOL-BREF. Statistical analyses included Spearman's correlation tests and independent samples t-tests. Results: Pain intensity did not significantly differ between primary pain group (4.24 ± 2.21) and secondary pain group (4.37 ± 2.33) (t = -0.267, Conclusion: Despite their specialized knowledge and experience with cognitive-based interventions, HCPs+CP did not report reduced pain intensity, though they maintained quality of life comparable to healthy colleagues. These findings challenge current theoretical models underlying cognitive-based pain management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.