Education about pain and experience with cognitive-based interventions do not reduce healthcare professionals’ chronic pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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, p = 0.79, Cohen’s d = −0.05). The total WHOQOL score was lower in HCPs+CP (66.81 ± 15.74) compared to healthy HCPs (71.13 ± 14.02) (t = −2.136, p = 0.035), but after removing respondents unfamiliar with interventions, no significant differences remained between groups across all WHOQOL domains (−0.09 < Cohen’s d < 0.14, p > 0.05). Among the 146 H-HCPs who had recovered from chronic pain, only 11% attributed their recovery to cognitive-based interventions, while the majority credited physical therapy (37.7%) and spontaneous recovery (32.9%). 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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».