Background: In addition to fatigue, pain is the most frequent persistent symptom in cancer survivors. Clear guidelines for both the diagnosis and treatment of pain in cancer survivors are lacking. Classification of pain is important as it may facilitate more specific targeting of treatment. In this paper we present an overview of nociceptive, neuropathic and central sensitization pain following cancer treatment, as well as the rationale, criteria and process for stratifying pain classification. Material and methods: Recently, a clinical method for classifying any pain as either predominant central sensitization pain, neuropathic or nociceptive pain was developed, based on a large body of research evidence and international expert opinion. We, a team of 15 authors from 13 different centers, four countries and two continents have applied this classification algorithm to the cancer survivor population. Results: The classification of pain following cancer treatment entails two steps: (1) examining the presence of neuropathic pain; and (2) using an algorithm for differentiating predominant nociceptive and central sensitization pain.Step 1 builds on the established criteria for neuropathic pain diagnosis, whileStep 2 applies a recently developed clinical method for classifying any pain as either predominant central sensitization pain, neuropathic or nociceptive pain to the cancer survivor population. Conclusion: The classification criteria allow identifying central sensitization pain following cancer treatment. The recognition of central sensitization pain in practice is an important development in the integration of pain neuroscience into the clinic, and one that is relevant for people undergoing and following cancer treatment.

Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is increasingly used as part of a physical therapy treatment in patients with chronic pain. A thorough clinical biopsychosocial assessment is recommended prior to PNE to allow proper explanation of the neurophysiology of pain and the biopsychosocial interactions in an interactive and patient-centered manner. However, without clear guidelines, clinicians are left wondering how a biopsychosocial assessment should be administered. Therefore, we provided a practical guide, based on scientific research and clinical experience, for the biopsychosocial assessment of patients with chronic pain in physiotherapy practice. The purpose of this article is to describe the use of the Pain - Somatic factors - Cognitive factors - Emotional factors - Behavioral factors - Social factors - Motivation - model (PSCEBSM-model) during the intake, as well as a pain analysis sheet. This model attempts to clearly establish what the dominant pain mechanism is (predominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or non-neuropathic central sensitization pain), as well as to assess the provoking and perpetuating biopsychosocial factors in patients with chronic pain. Using this approach allows the clinician to specifically classify patients and tailor the plan of care, including PNE, to individual patients.

Patient-centeredness in physiotherapy entails the characteristics of offering an individualized treatment, continuous communication (verbal and non-verbal), education during all aspects of treatment, working with patient-defined goals in a treatment in which the patient is supported and empowered with a physiotherapist having social skills, being confident and showing specific knowledge.

Background: Pain is one of the most prevalent and debilitating symptom following cancer treatment. Objectives: This paper entails a practical guide for clinicians willing to apply pain neuroscience education (PNE) in this specific population, or clinical researchers willing to examine the effects of PNE in patients suffering from pain following cancer. Results: Patient-specific information (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, pain memories, social factors) as well as identification of the dominant pain mechanism are needed to tailor the education to the specific needs and beliefs of the patient. Therapists require an in-depth understanding of pain mechanisms, the skills to explain to their patients various pain mechanisms, specific communication skills (e.g. Socratic-style dialogof education) and experience with current evidence-based biopsychosocially-driven pain management strategies for successful implementation of PNE in the clinic. Rather than purely focusing on the biomedical characteristics of pain following cancer (e.g., tissue damage due to past cancer treatment), PNE implies teaching patients about the underlying biopsychosocial mechanisms of pain. Its application is backed-up by mounting evidence supporting the effectiveness of PNE in non-cancer pain populations, and a pilot study in patients having pain following cancer. Conclusion: PNE is a potential solution to improve pain outcome in cancer survivors. Further research using sufficiently powered and well-designed randomized clinical trials should be conducted to examine the potential of PNE in patients having pain following cancer.

Pain neuroscience education (PNE) and motivational interviewing (MI) have been widely implemented and tested in the field of chronic pain management, and both strategies have been shown to be effective in the short term (small effect sizes) for the management of chronic pain. PNE uses contemporary pain science to educate patients about the biopsychosocial nature of the chronicity of their pain experience. The goal of PNE is to optimize patients’ pain beliefs/perceptions to facilitate the acquisition of adaptive pain–coping strategies. MI, on the other hand, is a patient-centered communication style for eliciting and enhancing motivation for behavior change by shifting the patient away from a state of indecision or uncertainty. Conceptually, PNE and MI appear to be complementary interventions, with complementary rather than overlapping effects; MI primarily improves cognitive and behavioral awareness and, potentially, adherence to treatment principles, whereas PNE potentially increases pain knowledge/beliefs, awareness, and willingness to explore psychological factors that are potentially associated with pain. Therefore, combining PNE with MI might lead to improved outcomes with larger and longer-lasting effect sizes. The combined use of PNE and MI in patients having chronic pain is introduced here, along with a description of how clinicians might be able to integrate PNE and MI in the treatment of patients experiencing chronic pain. Clinical trials are needed to examine whether combining PNE with MI is superior to PNE or MI alone for improving pain and quality of life in patients having chronic pain.

This is the first study providing insight into the constructs contributing to the Pain Neuroscience Education experience of patients with non-specific chronic pain. The results reveal the importance of the therapeutic alliance between the patient and caregiver, taking time, listening, providing a clear explanation, and the possible outcomes when doing so. The findings from this study can be used to facilitate healthcare professionals in providing Pain Neuroscience Education to patients with non-specific chronic pain. Implications for Rehabilitation An extensive biopsychosocial patient centred intake is crucial prior to providing Pain Neuroscience Education. Repetitions of Pain Neuroscience Education, in different forms (verbal and written information, examples, drawings, etc.) help patients to understand the theory of neurophysiology. Pain Neuroscience Education induces insight into the patient's complaints, improved coping with complaints, improved self-control, and induces in some cases peace of mind. Healthcare professionals providing Pain Neuroscience Education should be aware of the possible confronting nature of the contributing factors.

Aim: To explore perceptions and preferences of children, parents, and physical therapists regarding the therapeutic alliance in pediatric physical therapy in a rehabilitation setting. Methods: Qualitative phenomenological analysis of interviews with children (n ¼ 10), their parents (n ¼ 10), and physical therapists (n ¼ 10). Results: Three themes were identified: importance of trust in the physical therapist, transparency in sharing information, and negotiation concerning goals and tasks of treatment. Parents considered trust in the therapist's relational skills of greater importance to the therapeutic alliance than the therapist's technical skills. Although the physical therapists showed a strong willingness to meet the needs of children and parents, they seemed unaware of the emotional impact of positional inequality and the differences in roles and tasks of children, parents, and therapists during the treatment. Conclusion: All participants emphasized the importance of the quality of the therapeutic alliance. Nevertheless, positional inequality and differences in roles and tasks appeared to influence negotiation about goals and tasks of treatment. Children and parents are in a dependent relationship with the physical therapist. Physical therapists are challenged to find the right balance between their professional position and input on the one hand, and the emotional needs of child and parents on the other hand. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract