Recently, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released clinical criteria and a grading system for nociplastic pain affecting the musculoskeletal system. These criteria replaced the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant central sensitization (CS) pain and accounted for clinicians’ need to identify (early) and correctly classify patients having chronic pain according to the pain phenotype. Still, clinicians and researchers can become confused by the multitude of terms and the variety of clinical criteria available. Therefore, this paper aims at (1) providing an overview of what preceded the IASP criteria for nociplastic pain (‘the past’); (2) explaining the new IASP criteria for nociplastic pain in comparison with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain (‘the present’); and (3) highlighting key areas for future implementation and research work in this area (‘the future’). It is explained that the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are in line with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain but are more robust, comprehensive, better developed and hold more potential. Therefore, the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are important steps towards precision pain medicine, yet studies examining the clinimetric and psychometric properties of the criteria are urgently needed.

with details of the nature of the infringement. We will investigate the claim and if justified, we will take the appropriate steps.

Objective This explorative study investigates the moderating effect of sex and baseline pain characteristics on the effectiveness of preoperative pain neuroscience education (PNE) plus knee joint mobilization versus biomedical education plus knee joint mobilization in patients who have knee osteoarthritis and are scheduled to undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods After baseline assessment of self-reported questionnaires (pain intensity, disability, symptoms of central sensitization and pain cognitions) and quantitative sensory testing, 44 participants with knee osteoarthritis were randomized into the PNE plus knee joint mobilization or biomedical education plus knee joint mobilization group. The questionnaires were retaken directly after and 1 month after 4 sessions of treatment and at 3 months after surgery. Based on baseline quantitative sensory testing results, the sample was subdivided into a high (showing high experimental pain levels and low pressure pain thresholds) and low pain cluster using principal components analysis and cluster analysis. Therapy effects over time were evaluated using 3-way analysis of variance, with time as the within factor and treatment, sex, and baseline pain cluster as between factors. Results Women benefited significantly more from the PNE intervention compared with the control intervention in terms of self-reported symptoms of central sensitization. For both pain clusters, differences in therapeutic effects concerning pain intensity and pain cognitions were found, with higher superiority of the PNE intervention in the high-pain cluster subgroup compared with the low-pain cluster. Conclusion Based on these explorative analyses, it can be concluded that sex and preoperative pain measures may influence the effectiveness of preoperative PNE for some specific outcome measures in people scheduled to undergo TKA. Impact Although further research on this topic is needed, the potential influence of sex and preoperative pain measures on the effectiveness of preoperative PNE should be considered when implementing this intervention in people undergoing TKA.

This review discusses chronic pain, multiple modifiable lifestyle factors, such as stress, insomnia, diet, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity, and the relationship between these lifestyle factors and pain after cancer. Chronic pain is known to be a common consequence of cancer treatments, which considerably impacts cancer survivors’ quality of life when it remains untreated. Improvements in lifestyle behaviour are known to reduce mortality, comorbid conditions (i.e., cardiovascular diseases, other cancer, and recurrence) and cancer-related side-effects (i.e., fatigue and psychological issues). An inadequate stress response plays an important role in dysregulating the body’s autonomic, endocrine, and immune responses, creating a problematic back loop with pain. Next, given the high vulnerability of cancer survivors to insomnia, addressing and treating those sleep problems should be another target in pain management due to its capacity to increase hyperalgesia. Furthermore, adherence to a healthy diet holds great anti-inflammatory potential for relieving pain after cancer. Additionally, a healthy diet might go hand in hand with weight reduction in the case of obesity. Consuming alcohol and smoking have an acute analgesic effect in the short-term, with evidence lacking in the long-term. However, this acute effect is outweighed by other harms on cancer survivors’ general health. Last, informing patients about the benefits of an active lifestyle and reducing a sedentary lifestyle after cancer treatment must be emphasised when considering the proven benefits of physical activity in this population. A multimodal approach addressing all relevant lifestyle factors together seems appropriate for managing comorbid conditions, side-effects, and chronic pain after cancer. Further research is needed to evaluate whether modifiable lifestyle factors have a beneficial influence on chronic pain among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: The presence of pain decreases survival rates in cancer. Pain management in clinical settings is often suboptimal and secondary to other cancer-related treatments, leaving many people undertreated. Opioid use is associated with side effects and decreased survival rate in cancer patients. Hence, there is an urgent need for considering factors such as perceived injustice that sustain post-cancer pain and trigger a behavioral pattern associated with opioid use. Injustice beliefs represent a maladaptive pattern of cognitive appraisal that may be a salient target for improving pain-related coping in these patients. Perceived injustice is associated with increased opioid prescription and prospectively predicted opioid use at 1-year follow-up, urging the need for targeted interventions to diminish perceived injustice. OBJECTIVES: Explain the importance of screening for perceived injustice in patients with pain following cancer treatment, its potential relevance for opioid abuse, and its potential impact on the management of pain following cancer. Also, prove clinicians with a clinical guide for an approach comprising of modified pain neuroscience education, motivational interviewing, and acceptance-based interventions to account for perceived injustice in patients having pain following cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A narrative review, perspective and treatment manual SETTING: Several universities, a university of applied science department, a university hospital, and a private clinic (i.e., transdisciplinary pain treatment center). METHODS: Patients were cancer survivors with pain. Intervention included modified pain neuroscience education, motivational interviewing, and acceptance-based interventions. Measurements were taken through the Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ). RESULTS: The IEQ can be used to assess perceived injustice in a valid way. Education about pain, including discussing perceived injustice, should be the first part of the management of pain in cancer survivors. In order to obtain the often-required behavioral change towards a more adaptive lifestyle, motivational interviewing can be used. To thoroughly tackle perceived injustice in patients having pain following cancer, special emphasis should be given to the individual reasons patients identify for experiencing (continued) pain and related symptoms. Pain acceptance should also be thoroughly addressed. LIMITATIONS: Clinical trials exploring the benefits, including cost-effectiveness, of such a multimodal approach in patients with pain following cancer treatment are needed. CONCLUSIONS: In light of its potential relevance for opioid abuse and potential impact on conservative management strategies, clinicians are advised to screen for perceived injustice in patients with pain following cancer treatment. Therapeutic targeting of perceived injustice can be done through an approach comprising of modified pain neuroscience education, motivational interviewing, and acceptance-based interventions. KEY WORDS: Anger, cancer, counselling, education, medication use, motivational interviewing, neuroscience education, opioid, perceived injustice, rehabilitation, survivor

No abstract

Objective Multidimensional aspects of pain have raised awareness about cognitive appraisals, such as perceived injustice (PI) and pain catastrophizing (PC). It has been demonstrated that they play an important role in patients’ pain experience. However, the mediating effect of these appraisals has not been investigated in breast cancer survivors (BCS), nor have they been related to fatigue and sleep. Methods Cross-sectional data from 128 BCS were analysed by structural path analysis with the aim to examine the mediating effect of PI and PC in the relationship of pain on fatigue and sleep. Results The indirect mediating effects of PI on fatigue (CSI*PI = 0.21; P < 0.01 and VAS*PI = 1.19; P < 0.01) and sleep (CSI*PI = 0.31; P < 0.01 and VAS*PI = 1.74; P < 0.01) were found significant for both pain measures (Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)). PC, on the other hand, only mediated the relationship between pain measured by VAS and fatigue (VAS*PC = 0.80; P = 0.03). Positive associations were found, indicating that higher pain levels are positively correlated with PI and PC, which go hand in hand with higher levels of fatigue and sleep problems. Conclusion PI is an important mediator in the relationship of pain on fatigue and sleep, while PC is a mediator on fatigue after cancer treatment. These findings highlight that both appraisals are understudied and open new perspectives regarding treatment strategies in BCS.

Purpose This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of psychologically informed practice (PIP) with behavioural graded activity (BGA) compared to (1) waitlist controls (WLC), (2) other interventions (OI), (3) PIP alone or (4) BGA alone in cancer patients and survivors (CPaS). Methods PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were screened for randomised controlled trials encompassing BGA + PIP in CPaS. Effect sizes were inventoried for outcomes regarding physical activity (PA), quality of life (QoL) and debilitating symptoms (DS), which were assessed at four time points: post-intervention (PI), follow-up F1 (1 to 3 months), F2 (4 to 6 months) and F3 (> 6 months). The quality of the evidence was classified by the GRADE approach. Results Thirty-three studies were found eligible, comprising 4330 participants. Significant effects with low heterogeneity of PIP + BGA comparing to WLC were found for anxiety (SMD − 1.29 [−1.71; − 0.86]), depression (SMD − 0.79 [− 1.10; − 0.48]), functional impairment (SMD − 0.72 [− 0.95; − 0.50]), PA (self-reported: (SMD − 0.58 [− 0.84; − 0.32]) and objectively measured: (SMD − 0.51 [− 0.90; − 0.13])) and social impairment (SMD − 0.33 [− 0.58; − 0.08]). When comparing PIP + BGA to OI, fatigue (SMD − 0.35 [− 0.51; − 0.20]) and PA (SMD − 0.26 [− 0.41; − 0.11]) at PI, and fatigue (SMD − 0.34 [− 0.58; − 0.10]) at F1 were found significant with low heterogeneity. No significant effects were observed in the meta-analyses of studies comparing PIP + BGA to BGA or PIP alone. Conclusions PIP with BGA has a favourable effect on DS, PA and QoL in CPaS when compared to non-behavioural interventions such as WLC, usual care and education. However, further research is needed on ‘how’ and ‘when’ PIP + BGA should be provided in cancer rehabilitation. Implications for Cancer Survivors PIP + BGA has the potential to facilitate CPaS to reach the recommended amount of PA and reduce DS.