ArticleCanadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur2026
Let's talk about pain: A mixed methods exploration of patients' pain knowledge and preferred ways to introduce the biopsychosocial model of pain.
Article in Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur, 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
Background: Clinical guidelines recommend treating chronic pain using a biopsychosocial (BPS) model, yet the biomedical model remains dominant. It is known that pain is complex and influenced by many factors but, to our knowledge, patient-centered ways to introduce the BPS model have not been explored. Aims: Our primary aim was to explore patient-centered ways to introduce the BPS model of pain; second to this, we evaluated any changes in pain knowledge from baseline to follow-up. Methods: We facilitated focus groups with people ( Results: We developed themes that pertained to knowledge of, and barriers and facilitators to, sharing the BPS model of pain. Participants reported a lack of knowledge sharing by providers, and the gap was supported by low accuracy on a pain physiology questionnaire. We interpreted barriers to knowledge sharing as bidirectional: with systemic barriers affecting knowledge delivery (i.e., time, biomedical bias) and person-level barriers affecting knowledge receptivity (i.e., fear of stigma, history of diagnoses). An approach involving meaningful validation, individualized tailoring, multiple modalities (i.e., posters, handouts, videos), and knowledge sharing by all providers earlier in the pain journey may serve as facilitators to support a BPS-focused dialogue. Conclusions: Participants expressed a need for BPS model knowledge sharing. A patient-centered approach will prioritize validation, individualization, and the value of personal narratives for illustrating the brain's role in the pain experience.
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.