The prevalence and burden of pain has long been reported as problematic. Comprehensive pain education in undergraduate programmes is essential for developing knowledgeable, skilled and effective healthcare professionals. This cross-sectional survey describes the nature, content and learning strategies for pain curricula in undergraduate healthcare programmes in major universities in the United Kingdom (UK). Document analysis also highlighted gaps in pain-related standards from professional regulators and a higher education quality assurance body. The sample consisted of 19 higher education institutions delivering 108 programmes across dentistry, medicine, midwifery, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy and veterinary science. Seventy-four (68.5%) questionnaires were returned averaging 12.0 h of pain content with physiotherapy and veterinary science students receiving the highest input. Pain education accounted for less than 1% of programme hours for some disciplines. Traditional teaching methods dominated (e.g. lectures 87.8%) and only two programmes had fully implemented the International Association for the Study of Pain's (IASP) curricula. Minimal pain-related standards were found from professional regulators and the quality assurance documents. Pain education is variable across and within disciplines and interprofessional learning is minimal. Published curricula for pain education have been available for over 20 years but are rarely employed and pain is not a core part of regulatory and quality assurance standards for health professions. The hours of pain education is woefully inadequate given the prevalence and burden of pain. Recommendations include the introduction of pain-related educational standards across all professions, greater integration of pain content in undergraduate programmes and interprofessional approaches to the topic.

ObjectivesUnrelieved pain is a substantial public health concern necessitating improvements in medical education. The Advancing the Provision of Pain Education and Learning (APPEAL) study aimed to determine current levels and methods of undergraduate pain medicine education in Europe.Design and methodsUsing a cross-sectional design, publicly available curriculum information was sought from all medical schools in 15 representative European countries in 2012–2013. Descriptive analyses were performed on: the provision of pain teaching in dedicated pain modules, other modules or within the broader curriculum; whether pain teaching was compulsory or elective; the number of hours/credits spent teaching pain; pain topics; and teaching and assessment methods.ResultsCurriculum elements were publicly available from 242 of 249 identified schools (97%). In 55% (133/242) of schools, pain was taught only within compulsory non-pain-specific modules. The next most common approaches were for pain teaching to be provided wholly or in part via a dedicated pain module (74/242; 31%) or via a vertical or integrated approach to teaching through the broader curriculum, rather than within any specific module (17/242; 7%). The curricula of 17/242 schools (7%) showed no evidence of any pain teaching. Dedicated pain modules were most common in France (27/31 schools; 87%). Excluding France, only 22% (47/211 schools) provided a dedicated pain module and in only 9% (18/211) was this compulsory. Overall, the median number of hours spent teaching pain was 12.0 (range 4–56.0 h; IQR: 12.0) for compulsory dedicated pain modules and 9.0 (range 1.0–60.0 h; IQR: 10.5) for other compulsory (non-pain specific) modules. Pain medicine was principally taught in classrooms and assessed by conventional examinations. There was substantial international variation throughout.ConclusionsDocumented pain teaching in many European medical schools falls far short of what might be expected given the prevalence and public health burden of pain.

No abstract