ReviewPain reports2026
Acceptance of pain neuroscience education in chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions: qualitative systematic review.
Review in Pain reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is a recognized strategy to manage biopsychosocial aspects of chronic pain. To this date, a systematic synthesis of determinants affecting the use and acceptance of PNE in clinical practice is pending. Primary qualitative articles were included if they investigated patient and/or provider perspectives on the use and acceptance of PNE in chronic musculoskeletal pain management. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and PsycInfo to identify eligible articles. Two researchers independently conducted the consensus-guided study selection process. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) critical appraisal tool for qualitative research. Data from retrieved articles were synthesized using the JBI meta-aggregation approach. Confidence in findings was assessed by the ConQual approach to synthesized findings. Sixteen studies were included for qualitative meta-aggregation, comprehending perspectives of 329 participants. The analysis revealed 6 synthesized findings: (1) Basic didactic principles such as metaphors, multichannels, repetition, and plain messages support the delivery of PNE; (2) persisting beliefs in biomedical explanations of pain can lead to skepticism and misunderstandings of PNE; (3) emphasize the benefits of PNE and create personal relevance; (4) a group vs an individual setting should be chosen according to patient needs; (5) a good clinician-patient relationship is crucial for the acceptance of PNE; and (6) lacking confidence, unclear responsibilities, and a professional culture focused on biomedical aspects of care can keep practitioners from delivering PNE. Addressing these findings will contribute to a wider use and acceptance of PNE clinical practice.
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.