Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42050555›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026

How individuals formulate their beliefs about chronic musculoskeletal pain: introducing the dual implicit-explicit processing (DIP) model of pain belief formation - a qualitative exploration.

Michael Dunn, Alison B Rushton, Nicola R Heneghan, Andrew Soundy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael DunnCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport and Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. mdunn@citystgeorges.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6559-663X
Alison B RushtonSchool of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8114-7669
Nicola R HeneghanCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport and Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7599-3674
Andrew SoundyCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport and Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. a.a.soundy@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5118-5872

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is complex with many biopsychosocial factors that contribute to its development. Existing research has established many beliefs that individuals’ hold about their CMP, but the sources of information and mechanisms used to construct beliefs are not well understood. The aim of this study was to observe and describe the mechanisms and sources of information individuals use to formulate their beliefs about CMP.

methodsA preliminary exploration using interpretative phenomenological analysis methods is reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. Adults with CMP were recruited from the general public. Four stages of data analysis based on Smith and Osborn were undertaken to identify themes on the sources of information and mechanisms used to construct beliefs about CMP.

resultsIndividuals’ explicit (conscious) beliefs are grounded in their own research, knowledge, and experience, conversations with friends, family, or others in pain, and conversations with healthcare professionals informed by radiographic investigations. This information is synthesised into stories that make sense to the individual in understanding and explaining their CMP; narratives that are felt not to make sense are rejected as beliefs. When asked to justify beliefs, individuals checked against their own experiences or existing knowledge; if the narrative correlated with experiences or existing knowledge (e.g., wearing heel must contribute to CMP because it hurts while wearing them) then the narrative was justified as an accepted belief. Likewise, if narratives conflicted with own experiences or existing knowledge then it was justified as a rejected belief. Cognitive errors were evident with contradictory beliefs existing simultaneously, and narratives rejected as beliefs despite correlating with experiences or knowledge. These mechanisms explain how individuals formulate explicit, conscious beliefs, however, existing literature suggests that the majority of our beliefs are implicit, formulated automatically and unconsciously, driving motivations, attitudes and behaviours nonetheless. Therefore, we interpret our findings within this context, and propose the Dual Implicit-Explicit Processing (DIP) Model of Pain Belief Formation.

conclusionThe DIP model may be used by clinicians to target both implicit and explicit mechanisms to help individuals modify their beliefs in line with contemporary evidence, adopt helpful behaviours, and better manage CMP.

Indexed as

Chronic PainHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMusculoskeletal PainAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung AdultBeliefsChronic musculoskeletal painInterpretative phenomenological analysisQualitative

Identifiers

PMID42050555
PMCPMC13274004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.