Effectiveness of perioperative pain science education on pain, psychological factors and physical functioning: A systematic review

Abstract

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

A rapid review of the effectiveness of innovations to support patients on elective surgical waiting lists

“…Van der Gucht et al (2021) found that preoperative pain science education did not result in significant effects on pain, psychological factors or physical functioning compared to controls , in patients waiting to undergo total knee arthroplasty.…”

“…Small significant effects were also found for reducing postoperative anxiety, depression, and enhancing satisfaction. Van der Gucht et al (2021) found that preoperative pain science education did not result in significant effects on pain, psychological factors or physical functioning compared to controls, in patients waiting to undergo total knee arthroplasty.…”

“…Three systematic reviews (Burgess et al, 2019, Ng et al, 2021, Van der Gucht et al, 2021) provided evidence on the effectiveness of preoperative educational interventions on improving outcomes of patients awaiting elective surgery. One of the reviews targeted patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery (spinal surgery), another on cardiac surgery, and the third review did not have any specific surgical focus (elective surgery).…”

The impact of preoperative interview and prospective nursing on perioperative psychological stress and postoperative complications in patients undergoing TACE intervention for hepatocellular carcinoma

“…These activities can help patients relax and reduce feelings of tension and anxiety. [27][28][29][30] TACE intervention surgery is an invasive procedure, and the surgical incision can cause varying degrees of postoperative pain in patients. Additionally, the surgical process may stimulate the digestive system, thereby affecting postoperative digestive function.…”

Risk-of-bias rating is incorrect in systematic review by Van der Gucht and colleagues

“…Van der Gucht and colleagues recently published a systematic review examining the efficacy/effectiveness of educationally-based interventions designed to improve patients’ abilities to cope with pain. 1 I had a particular interest in this systematic review because Van der Gucht et al included our recently published trial 2 in the review and requested additional information, which we provided. The topic is an important one but with any systematic review, the information from each trial must be accurate for the reader to fully understand the meaning of a body of evidence.…”