Search

Objectives: Management of pain is suboptimal in many prehospital and emergency department settings, and European guidelines are lacking. We carried out the Consensus On Management of PAin Caused by Trauma (COMPACT) Delphi initiative to gain insights into the factors physicians consider important when selecting analgesics for trauma pain., Patients and Methods: A pan-European panel of experts in emergency medicine or pain (N = 31) was recruited to participate in the COMPACT Delphi initiative. In round 1, panelists supplied free-text responses to an open question about the attributes of analgesics for emergency pain relief favored by physicians. Common themes were consolidated into factors. In round 2, factors rated important by more than 75% of the panel were taken forward into round 3. In round 3, the point at which the consensus was achieved was defined a priori as at least 75% of panelists agreeing or strongly agreeing that a factor was important., Results: Twenty-nine experts participated, representing 12 European countries and with a mean (SD) of 20 (8.6) years of clinical experience. Most worked in an emergency department (79.3%). The consensus was achieved for 10 factors that were important to consider when selecting analgesics for trauma pain relief. The highest level of consensus was achieved for 'efficacy' (100%), followed by 'safety and tolerability' (96.6%), and 'ease of use' (93.1%)., Conclusion: These findings may facilitate the development of evidence-based guidelines supporting the provision of pain management in prehospital, emergency department, and critical care settings.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Introduction: Over the past decades, awareness on the importance of educational interventions in cancer pain management has increased. However, education is often restricted to biomedical pain management instructions. A more modern educational approach, also known as pain neuroscience education (PNE), explains pain from a biopsychosocial perspective. We hypothesise that this more comprehensive educational approach in the early treatment phase of breast cancer will lead to more beneficial effects for cancer pain management. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of this PNE intervention, in addition to best evidence physical therapy modalities for treatment and prevention of pain, physical, emotional and work-related functioning after breast cancer surgery, compared with a traditional biomedical educational intervention., Methods: A double-blinded randomised controlled trial has been started in November 2017 at the University Hospitals of Leuven. Immediately after breast cancer surgery, all participants (n=184) receive a 12-week intensive standard physical therapy programme. They receive three additional refresher sessions at 6, 8 and 12 months postsurgery. In addition, participants receive three educational sessions during the first-month postsurgery and three 'booster sessions' at 6, 8 and 12 months postsurgery. In the intervention group, the content of the education sessions is based on the modern PNE approach. Whereas in the control group, the education is based on the traditional biomedical approach. The primary outcome parameter is pain-related disability 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes related to other dimensions of pain, physical, emotional and work-related functioning at 1-week, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 18 months postsurgery., Ethics and Dissemination: The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This protocol has been approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospitals of Leuven. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations at congresses., Trial Registration Number: NCT03351075., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Abdominal pain is an important symptom in most patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Adequate control of pain is often unsatisfactory due to limited treatment options and significant variation in local practice, emphasizing the need for a multidisciplinary approach. This review contends that improvement in the management of PDAC pain will result from a synthesis of best practice and evidence around the world in a multidisciplinary way. To improve clinical utility and evaluation, the evidence was rated according to the GRADE guidelines by a group of international experts. An algorithm is presented, which brings together all currently available treatment options. Pain is best treated early on with analgesics with most patients requiring opioids, but neurolytic procedures are often required later in the disease course. Celiac plexus neurolysis offers medium term relief in a substantial number of patients, but other procedures such as splanchnicectomy are also available. Palliative chemotherapy also provides pain relief as a collateral benefit. It is stressed that the assessment of pain must take into account the broader context of other physical and psychological symptoms. Adjunctive treatments for pain, depression and anxiety as well as radiotherapy, endoscopic therapy and neuromodulation may be required in selected patients. There are few comparative studies to help define which combination and order of these treatment options should be applied. New pain therapies are emerging and could for example target neural transmitters. However, until better methods are available, management of pain should be individualized in a multidisciplinary setting to ensure optimal care., (Copyright © 2018 IAP and EPC. All rights reserved.)

Twenty years ago, the main barriers to successful cancer pain management were poor assessment by physicians, and patients' reluctance to report pain and take opioids. Those barriers are almost exactly the same today. Cancer pain remains under-treated; in Europe, almost three-quarters of cancer patients experience pain, and almost a quarter of those with moderate to severe pain do not receive any analgesic medication. Yet it has been suggested that pain management could be improved simply by ensuring that every consultation includes the patient's rating of pain, that the physician pays attention to this rating, and a plan is agreed to increase analgesia when it is inadequate. After outlining current concepts of carcinogenesis in some detail, this paper describes different methods of classifying and diagnosing cancer pain and the extent of current under-treatment. Key points are made regarding cancer pain management. Firstly, the pain may be caused by multiple different mechanisms and therapy should reflect those underlying mechanisms - rather than being simply based on pain intensity as recommended by the WHO three-step ladder. Secondly, a multidisciplinary approach is required which combines both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, such as psychotherapy, exercise therapy and electrostimulation. The choice of analgesic agent and its route of administration are considered, along with various interventional procedures and the requirements of palliative care. Special attention is paid to the treatment of breakthrough pain (particularly with fast-acting fentanyl formulations, which have pharmacokinetic profiles that closely match those of breakthrough pain episodes) and chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain, which affects around one third of patients who receive chemotherapy. Finally, the point is made that medical education should place a greater emphasis on pain therapy, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Objective: There is a need for effective brief interventions in chronic pain patients, and the identification of mechanisms of change., Method: In the present study, we tested the effectiveness of MPEP (Multidisciplinary Pain Education Program), a very brief, four-session cognitive-behaviorally based psycho-educational intervention for chronic pain using a pre-and post-test design. In addition, pre- to post-treatment change scores were calculated to investigate factors associated with change in pain. Participants of the study were 53 patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Primary outcome measures were (1) pain severity, (2) health perception, and (3) severity of depression. Secondary outcome measures included factors that have been implicated in the maintenance of chronic pain and that might be associated with worse treatment outcome: (1) catastrophizing, (2) kinesiophobia, and (3) action-proneness., Results: Findings provided preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of MPEP in that patients showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain symptoms (F = 24.503, p < 0.001, d = 0.59) and action-proneness (F = 178.504, p < 0.001, d = 1.95), and small improvements in health perception (F = 7.116, p < 0.05, d = 0.30). Furthermore, results showed that changes in catastrophizing (β = -0.455, p = 0.001) and severity of depression (β = -0.300, p < 0.05) were independently and significantly associated with changes in pain. However, changes in health perception, kinesiophobia, and action-proneness were not significantly associated with changes in pain (β = 0.203, ns; β = 0.003, ns; and β = 0.154, ns, respectively). Importantly, duration of chronic pain was not related to treatment outcome (β = 0.070, ns)., Conclusions: Overall, this study provides preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of MPEP and possible mechanisms through which MPEP is effective. Yet, further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of MPEP.

Background: In chronic non-malignant pain, medication is often used as an important cornerstone of the treatment. Medication non-adherence is a frequent problem in chronic conditions. In patients with chronic non-malignant pain, medication non-adherence ranges between 8% and 53%. Two types of non-adherence can be identified: underuse and overuse of pain medication., Objective: To examine determinants of both medication underuse and overuse non-adherence in patients with chronic non-malignant pain, with a focus on factors related to all five categories of determinants of medication non-adherence simultaneously, as proposed by the WHO., Design: A multicenter cross-sectional study., Settings: Three multidisciplinary outpatient pain centers in Flanders, Belgium., Participants: A total of 265 patients with chronic non-malignant pain participated in the study., Methods: Medication non-adherence was assessed by a self-report interview. Associations of socio-economic, treatment related, condition related, patient related and health care system related factors with medication underuse or overuse were determined by building two separate multivariable binary logistic regression models., Results: Thirty eight percent of the patients were fully adherent. Based on multivariable analyses, underuse was significantly associated with more prescribed analgesics (OR=2.303), self-medication (OR=4.679), lower pain intensity (OR=0.821), active coping strategies (OR=1.132) and lack of information (OR=0.268). Overuse of medication was associated with more prescribed analgesics (OR=1.645) and current smoking (OR=2.744)., Conclusion: Patients underusing or overusing their medication do have a different risk profile. The set of determinants of non-adherence, proposed by WHO, is suitable to study determinants of underuse, but the framework is less suitable to study determinants of medication overuse., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Medication nonadherence is a frequent problem in chronic conditions. In chronic noncancer pain, medication is often used as an important cornerstone of the treatment. Studies on medication nonadherence in this population, however, are scarce., Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of medication underuse and overuse nonadherence in a large sample of chronic pain patients treated in a multidisciplinary pain center. Second, an extensive list of demographic, disease-related, treatment-related and health behavior-related factors was included to compare these factors between adherent, overusers, and underusers, respectively., Methods: Self-report was used to measure medication adherence., Results: Forty-eight percent of the patients were nonadherent, with 34% of them showing underuse and 14% overuse of the prescribed medication. Multivariable analyses showed a significant association between younger age and medication nonadherence (both underuse and overuse). Furthermore, underuse was significantly associated with self-medication. Overuse was associated with current smoking, opioid prescription, and more medication intake moments., Conclusions: We can conclude that medication nonadherence, especially underuse of medication, occurs frequently among patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. Prospective research is needed to learn about the impact of medication overuse or underuse on clinical outcomes. Future research should examine underuse and overuse as different types of nonadherence as different factors might predict this behavior.

Health care providers, treating patients with chronic non-malignant pain, often experience that medication is not as effective as expected. It is important to realize that the effectiveness of a pharmacological treatment can be influenced by the way the medication is taken. Medication adherence is a topic that gains more attention, especially in chronic conditions, because it affects treatment outcome. A systematic review of studies on medication adherence in patients with chronic non-malignant pain was performed to gain insight in the prevalence of the problem, the impact on treatment outcome, influencing variables and interventions. Searching several electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo and Cochrane), 14 relevant articles were found. The results indicate that medication non-adherence is common in patients with chronic non-malignant pain. Both overuse and underuse of medication occurs. However, due to the scarce literature and important methodological limitations, it is not possible to make firm conclusions concerning the impact on outcome, influencing variables and optimal intervention strategies. This review highlights some important gaps in the adherence literature in a chronic non-malignant pain population and sets the stage for future research.

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition with a multidimensional impact on the lives of patients, their families and communities. The public health burden of chronic pain is gathering recognition as a major healthcare problem in its own right and deserves closer attention. The challenge in treating chronic pain is to provide effective clinical management of a complex, multifaceted set of conditions that require a coordinated strategy of care. Epidemiological data and patient surveys have highlighted the areas of pain management that might be improved. These include a need for better understanding and documentation of the symptoms of chronic pain, standardized levels of care, improved communication among clinical personnel and with patients, and an updated education program for clinicians. For these reasons, new strategies aimed at improving the standards of pain management are needed. The Pain Associates' International Network (P.A.I.N.) Initiative was set up to devise practical methods for improving the quality of pain management for patients. These strategies have recently been put into practice through a number of activities: P.A.I.N. Workshops are meetings of international pain management professionals dedicated to discussing current management strategies and producing consensus recommendations for improving standards of care; P.A.I.N. Quality is a unique software program designed to help treating clinicians to document patient data and derive effective treatment plans; P.A.I.N. Online provides a web site forum for discussion of pain management topics; and P.A.I.N. Management is a clinician education program providing up-to-date training in pain management.

Current approaches to the management of pain due to amputation are presented by two Spanish pain specialists with additional commentaries on care of such patients by pain specialists from Belgium and the United Kingdom. Contemporary pharmacotherapy and nondrug interventions are described.

Introduction: Chronic back pain is one of the most prevalent conditions and has a large socio-economic impact. The lack of routine use of non-pharmacological options and issues associated with pharmacological treatments underscore high unmet needs in the treatment of back pain. Although blue light phototherapy has proven efficacy in dermatology, limited information is available about its use in back pain. Methods: In this proof-of-concept, randomized controlled trial, a pain relief patch (PRP) delivered blue light at the site of back pain for 30 min during five treatment sessions. The comparator device delivered green light for 5 s but was worn for 30 min. A follow-up visit took place after the last treatment. The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of treatment by PRP, compared to the control device, in reducing pain intensity at the end of the treatment period. The post-treatment visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity score for each group was calculated across the five treatment sessions and compared to the baseline. Secondary objectives included the disability score (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and safety. Results: The full analysis set included 171 patients. A statistically significant reduction in pain intensity occurred after the use of PRP (p < 0.02), but the study did not meet its primary objective of a superiority trial aimed at demonstrating a 0.6 cm difference in favor of PRP on the VAS scale. There was no significant change in the disability scores. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify the treatment response by patient characteristics such as pain intensity at baseline and skin type. As expected, safety data showed erythema and skin discoloration in the PRP group but not in the control group. Discussion/conclusion: This trial had multiple limitations that need to be addressed in future research. Although the primary objective was not achieved, this proof-of-concept study provides important efficacy and safety data in relation to the use of blue light in the treatment of chronic back pain and key insights that may support further research on similar devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pain science education on pain, psychological factors and physical functioning in adults who underwent surgery. Data sources: A systematic literature search of English articles using PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library. Review methods: The search strategy was constructed as follows: (((pain) AND (education)) OR (pain education)) AND (surgery). Only controlled quantitative studies in adults reporting outcome(s) on pain, psychological factors and/or physical functioning were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. P -values and corresponding effect sizes for interaction-effect (time × group) portrayed the difference in change over time between groups were of interest. The last search was conducted on February 28, 2021. Results: Nine papers (n = 1078) were deemed eligible for this review. Two randomized controlled trials showed significant interaction effects. Breast cancer patients who had received one preoperative pain science education session showed a significant increase in postoperative pain compared to controls (P -value = 0.0394). Furthermore, p sychological factors (pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia) decreased in participants who had received pain science education before total knee arthroplasty, while this was not the case in the control group (P -value < 0.001, ƞ2p:0.11). Conclusions: Overall, pain science education did not result in any significant postoperative effects on pain, psychological factors and/or physical functioning compared to controls. There is currently no strong evidence for the implementation of pain science education in the perioperative period. Registration number: PROSPERO: ID 161267, registration number CRD42020161267 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Pain is one of the most common reasons for an individual to consult their primary care physician, with most chronic pain being treated in the primary care setting. However, many primary care physicians/non-pain medicine specialists lack enough awareness, education and skills to manage pain patients appropriately, and there is currently no clear, common consensus/formal definition of "pain chronification".Methods: This article, based on an international Change Pain Chronic Advisory Board meeting which was held in Wiesbaden, Germany, in October 2016, provides primary care physicians/non-pain medicine specialists with a narrative overview of pain chronification, including underlying physiological and psychosocial processes, predictive factors for pain chronification, a brief summary of preventive strategies, and the role of primary care physicians and non-pain medicine specialists in the holistic management of pain chronification.Results: Based on currently available evidence, we propose the following consensus-based definition of pain chronification which provides a common framework to raise awareness among non-pain medicine specialists: "Pain chronification describes the process of transient pain progressing into persistent pain; pain processing changes as a result of an imbalance between pain amplification and pain inhibition; genetic, environmental and biopsychosocial factors determine the risk, the degree, and time-course of chronification."Conclusions: Early intervention plays an important role in preventing pain chronification and, as key influencers in the management of patients with acute pain, it is critical that primary care physicians are equipped with the necessary awareness, education and skills to manage pain patients appropriately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Opioids provide effective relief from moderate‐to‐severe pain and should be prescribed as part of a multifaceted approach to pain management when other treatments have failed. Fixed‐dose oxycodone/naloxone prolonged‐release tablets (OXN PR) were designed to address the opioid class effect of opioid‐induced constipation (OIC) by combining the analgesic efficacy of oxycodone with the opioid receptor antagonist, naloxone, which has negligible systemic availability when administered orally. This formulation has abuse‐deterrent properties, since systemic exposure to naloxone by parenteral administration would antagonize the euphoric effects of oxycodone. Methods: A literature search was conducted to assess the evidence base for OXN PR to treat moderate‐to‐severe pain and its impact on bowel function, based on published clinical trials and observational studies. Results: Extensive data demonstrate that OXN PR provides effective analgesia and clinically relevant improvements in bowel function in patients with OIC and moderate‐to‐severe cancer‐related pain and noncancer pain types such as low back pain, neuropathic pain, and musculoskeletal pain. OXN PR has also been found to improve bowel function in patients with OIC refractory to multiple types of laxatives, and improve Parkinson's disease–related pain. No unanticipated safety concerns have been reported in elderly patients. Conclusions: Evidence from clinical trials and observational studies confirms that for selected patients OXN PR significantly improves moderate‐to‐severe chronic pain and provides relief from OIC. Treatment should be tailored to individual patients to establish the lowest effective dose. An absence of analgesic ceiling effect was seen across the clinically relevant dose range investigated (≤ 160/80 mg/day). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the introduction of evidence-based recommendations for postoperative pain management (POPM), the consensus is that pain control remains suboptimal. Barriers to achieving patient-satisfactory analgesia include deficient knowledge regarding POPM among staff, lack of instructions, insufficient pain assessments and sub-optimal treatment. Effective monitoring of POPM is essential to enable policy makers and healthcare providers to improve the quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) are quantitative measures of clinical practice that can monitor, evaluate and guide the quality of care provided to patients. QIs can be used to assess various aspects relating to the care process and they have proven useful in improving health outcomes in diseases such as myocardial infarction. In this commentary we critically analyze the evidence regarding the use of QIs in acute POPM based upon the experience of pain specialists from Europe and the USA who are members of the Change Pain Advisory Board. We also undertook a literature review to see what has been published on QIs in acute pain with the goal of assessing which QIs have been developed and used, and which ones have been successful/unsuccessful. In the hospital sector the development and implementation of QIs is complex. The nature of POPM requires a highly trained, multidisciplinary team and it is at this level that major improvements can be made. Greater involvement of patients regarding pain management is also seen as a priority area for improving clinical outcomes. Changes in structure and processes to deliver high-level quality care need to be regularly audited to ensure translation into better outcomes. QIs can help drive this process by providing an indicator of current levels of performance. In addition, outcomes QIs can be used to benchmark levels of performance between different healthcare providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To develop a non-invasive, safe and reproducible target-engagement biomarker for future TRPA1 antagonists in healthy volunteers. Methods Dose finding ( n = 11): 3%, 10%, and 30% cinnamaldehyde (CA) and placebo (= vehicle) was topically applied on the right forearm. One-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni was used to compare between doses. Reproducibility: 10% CA doses were topically applied during one visit on both arms ( n = 10) or during two visits ( n = 23) separated by a washout period of 7 days. CA-induced dermal blood flow (DBF) was assessed by laser Doppler imaging (LDI) at baseline and at 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 min post-CA. Paired t-test was used to compare between arms or visits. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was calculated to assess reproducibility. Data are expressed as percent change from baseline (mean ± 95% CI). Results All three doses increased DBF compared to vehicle at all time-points, with the maximum response at 10-20 min post-CA. Dose response was found when comparing AUC0-50min of 30% CA (51 364 ± 8475%*min) with 10% CA (32 239 ± 8034%*min, P = 0.03) and 3% CA (30 226 ± 11 958%*min, P = 0.015). 10% CA was chosen as an effective and safe dose. DBF response to 10% CA was found to be reproducible between arms (AUC0-50min, CCC = 0.91) and visits (AUC0-50min, CCC = 0.83). Based on sample size calculations, this model allows a change in CA-induced DBF of 30-50% to be detected between two independent groups of maximum 10-15 subjects with 80% power. Conclusions Evaluation of CA-induced changes in DBF offers a safe, non-invasive and reproducible target-engagement biomarker in vivo in humans to evaluate TRPA1 antagonists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioids are increasingly used for treatment of chronic pain. However, they are only effective in a subset of patients and have multiple side effects. Thus, studies using biomarkers for response are highly warranted. The current study prospectively examined 63 opioid-naïve patients initiating opioid use for diverse types of chronic pain at five European centers. Quantitative sensory testing, electroencephalography (EEG) recordings, and assessment of pain catastrophizing were performed prior to treatment. The co-primary outcomes were change from baseline in ratings of chronic pain and quality of life after 14 days of opioid treatment. Secondary outcomes included patient’s global impression of clinical change and side effects. Logistic regression models adjusted for age and sex were used to identify biomarkers predictive for successful treatment, defined as at least a 30% reduction in average pain intensity or an improvement in quality of life of at least 10 scale points. Fifty-nine patients (94%) completed the study. The mean age was 55 ± 16 years and 69% were females. Pain reduction was predicted by cold pain intensity (OR: 0.69; P = 0.01), pain catastrophizing (OR: 0.82; P = 0.03), relative delta (OR: 0.76; P = 0.03) and beta EEG activity (OR: 1.18; P = 0.04) induced by experimental cold pain. None of the study variables were related to improvement in quality of life. For the first time, individual pain processing characteristics have been linked to opioid response in a mixed chronic pain population. This has the potential to personalize treatment of chronic pain and restrict opioid use to patients with high likelihood for response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the increasing clinical use of transdermal buprenorphine, questions have persisted about the possibility of a ceiling effect for analgesia, its combination with other μ-opioid agonists, and the reversibility of side effects. In October 2008, a consensus group of experts met to review recent research into the pharmacology and clinical use of buprenorphine. The objective was to achieve consensus on the conclusions to be drawn from this work. It was agreed that buprenorphine clearly behaves as a full μ-opioid agonist for analgesia in clinical practice, with no ceiling effect, but that there is a ceiling effect for respiratory depression, reducing the likelihood of this potentially fatal adverse event. This is entirely consistent with receptor theory. In addition, the effects of buprenorphine can be completely reversed by naloxone. No problems are encountered when switching to and from buprenorphine and other opioids, or in combining them. Buprenorphine exhibits a pronounced antihyperalgesic effect that might indicate potential advantages in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Other beneficial properties are the compound's favorable safety profile, particularly in elderly patients and those with renal impairment, and its lack of effect on sex hormones and the immune system. The expert group agreed that these properties, as well as proven efficacy in severe pain and favorable tolerability, mean that buprenorphine can be considered a safe and effective option for treating chronic cancer and noncancer pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meningioma mostly present with localised pain associated with signs of spinal cord compression. We present a case of a 72 year old woman with a thoracal meningioma with an atypical manifestation: radicular thoracal pain with signs of mechanical hyperalgesia and allodynia without any signs of spinal cord compression. Diagnosis was made by MRI-scan of the dorsal spine. After neurosurgical resection there was a complete recovery. We like to stress the importance of providing detailed information on clinical cases, especially with an atypical manifestation. We review the literature published on meningioma and discuss the most important symptoms and signs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Adding 6 sessions of pain neuroscience education to standard physiotherapy after breast cancer surgery did not result in a better course of functioning compared with biomedical pain education. Pain is one of the most common and long-lasting side effects reported by women surgically treated for breast cancer. Educational interventions may optimize the current physical therapy modalities for pain prevention or relief in this population. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is an educational intervention that explains the pain experience not only from a biomedical perspective but also the psychological and social factors that contribute to it. Through a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (EduCan trial) it was investigated if PNE, in addition to the standard physiotherapy program immediately after breast cancer surgery, was more effective over the course of 18 months postoperatively than providing a biomedical explanation for pain. Primary outcome was the change in pain-related disability (Pain Disability Index, 0-70) over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included change in pain intensity, upper limb function, physical activity level, and emotional functioning over 4, 6, 8, 12, and 18 months postoperatively. Multivariate linear models for repeated (longitudinal) measures were used to compare changes. Preoperative and postoperative moderators of the change in pain-related disability were also explored. Of 184 participants randomized, the mean (SD) age in the PNE and biomedical education group was 55.4 (11.5) and 55.2 (11.4) years, respectively. The change in pain-related disability from baseline to 12 months postoperatively did not differ between the 2 groups (PNE 4.22 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.40-7.03], biomedical 5.53 [95% CI: 2.74-8.32], difference in change −1.31 [95% CI: −5.28 to 2.65], P = 0.516). Similar results were observed for all secondary outcomes. Future research should explore whether a more patient-tailored intervention would yield better results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]