Treating pain is a tricky business, but one that has become an integral component of today’s healthcare system. As clinicians, it is a primary outcome measurement that we regularly hinge the successes and failures of our treatment on. But is this the right measurement for all patient cases? Is all pain the same? Such questions quickly lead us down a rabbit hole and self-examination begging the question – Am I doing it right?

This blog will attempt to answer such questions and provide relevance to clinical practice. In order to know if we are on the right path for treating patients with pain, we need to define pain. An undertaking that is no easy task.

Examining the history of pain conceptualization quickly elucidates our lack of understanding of the topic.

In 1662, Descartes describes pain based on dualism (Sullivan 2008). He argues the forces governing our bodies are separate from the forces governing our minds. In the above example he explains the flame would cause pores in the foot to open and tubes would drive spirits up to the brain. Another way to view this, damage to the tissue in the foot activated neural pathways signaling the brain of the sensation of pain, eliciting a 1:1 of pain intensity and tissue damage.  Unfortunately, this remains a pervasive thought in the medical community.

Building on Descartes’s original model, we can see the development of a biopsychomotor model.

This model adds behavior to a previously dominant sensory system: communicative pain behaviors and protective behavior. Communicative includes such things as facial expressions (grimacing) and verbal/paraverbal expressions (words such as owe, hurt, ouch and grunts/moans). The point of behavior systems is to relay pertinent information to observers about the painful experience of the sufferer in an attempt to elicit aid.  

Protective pain behaviors are any actions to mitigate further injury/damage, reduce the painful experience, and recover.  

Coupled together, the addition of communicative and protective pain behavior broadened our understanding of pain and our roles as clinicians – understand the painful experience and guide the path to recovery.  

However, the unfortunate flaw in this premise is pain does not always mean tissue damage or the need for escape and recovery.  

In 1979, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released an editorial titled, “The Need of a Taxonomy” regarding pain. The idea was to get everyone on the same page regarding the topic of pain and ensure we are speaking the same language.

The proposed definition for pain was this:

“An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.”

And a Note was added for clarification.

“Note: Pain is always subjective. Each individual learns the application of the word through experiences related to injury in early life. Biologists recognize that those stimuli which cause pain are liable to damage tissue. Accordingly, pain is that experience which we associate with actual or potential tissue damage, it is unquestionably a sensation in a part or parts of the body but it is also always unpleasant and therefore also an emotional experience. Experiences which resemble pain., e.g., pricking, but are not unpleasant, should not be called pain. Unpleasant abnormal experiences (dysaesthesiae) may also be pain but are not necessarily so because, subjectively, they may not have the usual sensory qualities of pain. Many people report pain in the absence of tissue damage or any likely pathophysiological cause; usually this happens for psychological reasons. There is no way to distinguish their experience from that due to tissue damage if we take the subjective report. If they regard their experience as pain and if they report it in the same ways as pain caused by tissue damage, it should be accepted as pain. This definition avoids tying pain to the stimulus. Activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may well appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause.”

What’s changed via the IASP definition of pain since 1979? It would appear very little and merely the addition of this line in the Note:

“The inability to communicate verbally does not negate the possibility that an individual is experiencing pain and is in need of appropriate pain-relieving treatment.”

This definition has come under fire recently and several new definitions have been proposed.

Fast forward to 2016 and an article by Williams and Craig proposes an updated definition of pain to again gain a new perspective on the topic.  They propose this definition:

“Pain is a distressing experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage with sensory, emotional, cognitive, and social components.”  

In this definition, we have the addition of cognition and social components, as well as the replacement of the word “unpleasant” with “distressing” to describe the experience.

The authors explain the addition of cognition:

“Interest in the structure and content of cognitive processes addresses experience: what is the individual thinking about when in pain? Self-report demonstrates a broad range of content beyond intensity, incorporating ‘nociception, emotion, decision-making, self-awareness, social cognition, and communicative tendencies.’ Subjective experience of pain can include perception of internal somatic events and experience of previous, current, and anticipated environments. Because self-report is largely under personal control, it provides a medium for influencing the environment in the individual’s perceived best Interests.”

And their addition of a social component:

“Social environments determine exposure to pain, thoughts, and feelings when in pain, communication of distress to others, and others’ experience and responses. We remind readers that health care delivery systems, and all human and some animal pain studies, are inherently social.”

When we synthesize down the components of their definition for pain, the desired outcome relates to survival.  


Pain and pain expression are naturally selected for to ensure the survival of our species.  Williams discusses the idea of pain expression well,

“Of necessity, vigilance to observed pain cues in others coevolved. The individual expressing pain would derive benefit if expression of pain were reliably followed by actions by observers that promoted recovery and survival; protection from danger; and aid in obtaining basic requirements (Prkachin 1997; Prkachin et al. 1983). If the person in pain might survive rather than not, and the cost to helpers is low, selection advantage follows as with other help and exchange of information – the currency of kin or reciprocal altruism.”  

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 2.12.54 PM

Pain expression was naturally selected for.

By now it is becoming apparent about the difficulties of defining an abstract term. Pain is a perplexing word that the healthcare field continues to try and understand and treat. Semantics and our words matter (this will be a recurring theme throughout this blog).

Semantics, defined as “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning; the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence or text.”

Most recently, in 2018, we have yet another proposed definition by Cohen et al.

Thus far, this is my favorite definition:

“Pain is a mutually recognizable somatic experience that reflects a person’s apprehension of threat to their bodily or existential integrity.”

A major issue when dealing with pain is the lack of a concrete, agreed upon definition. Many argue merely attempting to define the word is futile because it inherently limits our understanding of the individualistic experience. An experience often governed by social/culture underpinnings and strongly linked to the person’s past experiences. Even more challenging is the linguistic limitations to accurately express the process by the individual experiencing pain and the cognitive ability of the provider to digest and utilize the relayed information.

The authors present several well thought out arguments regarding the insufficiency of the current IASP definition of pain.

  1. Association of tissue damage with pain.
  2. Perpetuating dualistic thinking regarding pain, and
  3. Fallibility of the relationship favoring the observer (clinician) making judgement of the patient’s personal experience of pain.

They go on to explain how they developed their proposed definition.

Mutually recognizable = this addresses the clinician patient relationship and instead of favoring the clinician’s observation of the patient’s individual experience a shift is made to focus on a mutual experience (therapeutic alliance) thus removing doubt about the situation. We will discuss therapeutic alliance more in depth shortly.

The authors go on to state:

“This helps to resolve the clinician’s dilemma, enabling a clinical encounter that ensures a mutual exploration of the patient’s beliefs, expectations, emotions, and perceived meanings of pain. This negotiated position stands to relieve the tension between the competing ‘privileges’ of self-report and observer interpretation.”

Somatic experience = substitute for IASP’s “sensory and emotional” aspect of pain definition. Instead of providing a dualist approach (mind vs body) the use of somatic chooses to follow the “in and of the body” approach meaning pain doesn’t occur in the mind or the body but rather the mind is of the body and regardless which location pain is experienced, it is still of the person.

This hopefully will remove the typical argument against BPS when the narrative is provided, “It’s {pain} all in my head.” and soften the biomedical stance, “It’s {pain} a structural/tissue problem”.

Removal of “actual or potential tissue damage” and substitutes with the phrase “apprehension of threat to their bodily or existential integrity.” Hopefully this will detract from the premise pain = tissue damage but instead validates both those experiencing acute injury perceiving pain and those not experiencing acute tissue injury but still perceiving pain.

The addition of “apprehension of threat to their bodily or existential integrity” is intriguing from another perspective. The authors define apprehension as “anticipation of adversity, dread, or fear” for the threat of a person’s body or existential integrity. They define integrity as:

“The state of being whole, which when applied to living beings is closely related to ‘autonomy’ meaning existence as an independent organism and not as a mere form or state of development of an organism.”

They conclude pain, in essence, is a threat to a person’s existence i.e. existential integrity. This leads the discussion down a rabbit hole regarding the answer to what conditions are necessary for survivability of living beings as “integral, autonomous systems”. Their final thought on the matter,

“If preservation of autonomy is the critical variable of a living system, then pain is a threat to that autonomy and thus to the existential integrity of a living system.”

If autonomy is a necessary aspect of survivability and pain detracts from the autonomy of a person, then any treatment or person breeding dependency likely is perpetuating the loss of autonomy. Begging the question is treatment or the person truly helping?

Probably a clinically bigger issue is the idea of treatment for pain. The existence of a treatment evokes the existence of a problem needing to be fixed. Our professions have done a great job at creating problems to be fixed, one of them the perception of pain and then a multitude of pseudoscientific explanations for why the patient is in pain. The initial step that likely needs to occur is re-framing of pain as an attribute of the living and the need for acceptance.

One of our primary jobs as clinicians is to attempt to understand the expression of pain from the patient in front of us and change their painful experience.  The inherent issue with this aspect of our job, we as humans are not great communicators regarding pain and our own personal experiences and assessment of our internal environment (our bodies) is poor and often skewed.   

The expression of pain is made up of 3 components:  

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 2.16.41 PM

  1. Subjective perception
  2. Learned response
  3. Observable expression

All of our behaviour is influenced by social context. The patient’s reporting of their painful experience is based on their subjective perception of the issue. We must trust what they are reporting (if they say their pain is a 10/10 then believe them). We should also not question the observable expression of pain. However, our influence can be best hedged at altering learned responses. Learned responses can be derived from conscious and unconscious behavior.  Reinforcement learning explains this concept well – interaction with one’s environment through trial and error; exploitation of past experiences and exploration of new ones based on risk/reward.  In essence, we are altering the painful experience for the patient while aiding learned responses. The experience lies within the cognition of the patient.

Examining Williams and Craig’s pain definition more closely reveals cognition is composed of 3 variables – attention, memory, and language.

Naturally, a painful experience elicits an often reflexive response to escape. The desire to escape is mediated by several moderators:

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 2.21.54 PM

Each moderator influences the intensity of the patient’s desire to escape from the painful experience. An initial threat assessment is completed where the patient decides how threatening to survival is this issue. Followed by drawing on past experiences.  Novelty can drive the desire for escape due to unpredictability of the situation – the unknown is scary and tends to increase our need to flee. With a high threat value, novelty, and unpredictability comes the possibility of catastrophic thinking or the thought process of worst case scenario (webmd for pain = cancer; we will discuss this more later). Finally, the painful experience tends to increase somatic awareness or vigilance to the area of the body we are perceiving pain.

This process can perpetuate our attentional focus to the painful experience and ultimately pain will demand our attention. However, we attempt to oscillate our attentional focus between the painful experience and a focal task while managing the aforementioned moderators for escape.  

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 2.24.54 PM

Durnez demonstrates this concept well in a 2017 study, “Let it be? Pain control attempts critically amplify attention to somatosensory input”.  

Where does our help fit into this equation?


The function of pain is to demand attention and prioritize escape, recovery, and healing.  

Once the decision has been made to escape, we are sought out for our knowledge to aid escape and set the patient on the path to “recovery and healing.”

Once the patient is in our office, a primary directive is to change the painful experience. In order to do so the appropriate path requires assessment. A dichotomy will be formed in order to ease the process of clinical decision making and provide a framework from which to work from.  

Two categories of pain can be developed: acute and chronic. The determining factors of pain classification are related to the time-frame of pain chronicity and the presence of an identifiable mechanism of injury (MOI). 

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 2.27.38 PM

A great example of acute injury resulting in acute pain is the 2008 Beijing Olympics.  An obvious traumatic injury for the weight lifter. In the above picture, there is direct evidence of an MOI relating to tissue damage and the experience of acute pain.  


We have a fairly good understanding of the physiological process which ensues following such an acute injury. We can view this process as a bottom-up approach (Hauck 2015 and Nicolardi 2016).

The acute issue is driven by a stimulus – barbell eliciting tissue damage from failure to adapt to applied load → which stimulates nociception or sensation derived from nociceptors (can be mechanical, thermal, or chemical) → elicits an intensity dependent (threat assessment) unintentional/automatic response (self-protective behavior to ensure survival). An acute issue has the potential for the patient to experience pain and in this instance is necessitated to elicit escape and seek recovery in order to limit further acute tissue damage.

We will come back to this graphic in a bit.

For now, let’s address the acute issue.  Tissue was damaged, we know a normative physiological response will occur to heal the issue – so what is our job as rehabilitation professionals?

We can’t expedite the healing process but there are a few things we can do when guiding the path of an acute injury.  

  1. Reassure/Set expectations – this issue will get better (obviously there are limitations to our healing capacity and perhaps there will be conversations regarding a new “normal”)
  2. Create good environment for healing – discuss movements/activities to avoid while an area heals and then slowly reintroduce tolerable movements/activities over broad time
  3. Guide the path to goals – what area was damaged and what does the patient require of that area for activities of daily living and desired extracurricular activities
  4. Minimize dependency – this one can not be stressed enough. A possible correlate to development of chronic pain is the idea pain control and healing comes from external sources thus perpetuating a state of learned helplessness.  


Some other areas of focus that will be required for athletic populations:

  1. Discuss programming leading up to injury – often a non-contact musculoskeletal injury is a training based injury (we’ve discussed this previously – read here)
  2. Reintroduce tolerable movement over broad time
  3. Discuss programming during rehab – here are the things we can do while that area is healing
  4. Discuss return to sport programming post-rehab. The patient has been likely operating at subthreshold of previous baseline chronic fitness levels, strongly advised against immediately returning to training at those previous levels – read here).

And for an acute issue…….that’s it – nothing fancy, no thrills, just cold hard evidence based advice. We are along for the ride just like the patient but while along for the ride let’s guide the path to desired outcomes.

If an acute issue can be related to tissue damage and the painful experience then what is a chronic pain issue?  

We are still attempting to understand how acute pain can develop into chronic pain.

In regards to defining chronic pain, the best definition we have so far is, “……persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months.” The broad definition of pain and this definition of chronic pain certainly leaves a lot of unknowns and can cause heterogeneity in research data. For now, we have to use what is available with the understanding our knowledge will grow and new perspective will hopefully improve how we approach the topic of pain.

There are studies currently seeking to find predictive variables for the development of chronic pain. A study by Esteve et al, Resilience and Vulnerability Factors When Pain is Acute as Predictors of Disability: Findings From a Two-Year Longitudinal Study attempts to examine variables related to the development of future disability.

The authors completed a 2 year prospective study on people dealing with acute back pain and examined if the following variables were predictive of future disability when measured during acute pain:

  1. pain-related disability
  2. pain intensity
  3. depression
  4. fear avoidance beliefs
  5. anxiety sensitivity and
  6. resilience.

The nuts and bolts are explained here:

“A sample of individuals who had acute back pain at the first measurement occasion was assessed at six-month intervals over a two-year follow-up period. Taking the foregoing into account, the following hypotheses were postulated: 1) higher initial pain-related disability, pain intensity, depression, fear avoidance beliefs, and anxiety sensitivity when pain is acute will predict higher pain-related disability; and 2) higher resilience when pain is acute will predict lower pain-related disability.”

Authors primary findings:

  • Greater levels of pain intensity during acute pain episode were predictive for higher disability (failure to adapt) at six months and greater increase in disability during subsequent two years.
  • Patients with higher scores of disability during acute pain episode had higher scores of disability six months later and greater levels of pain-related disability (interferes with daily life pursuits) during acute phase were predictive of greater increases of disability during subsequent two years.

Overall, the authors conclude:

“In summary, patients with acute back pain who need specialized clinical attention have a profile that is characterized by high levels of pain intensity, initial disability, and fear avoidance beliefs. These patients are at high risk of developing pain-related disability in the following months and would definitely benefit from close followup and preventive measures aimed at preserving daily functioning and promoting a healthy pattern of activities.”

Just further insight into the development of chronic pain, predictive factors, and ways to focus our patient interactions for long lasting benefit. How chronic pain develops is not yet fully understood but strides are being made in the research field. For a more in depth look at the transition of acute pain to chronic pain, check out this article by Chapman and Viereck 2017.  

Chronic pain likely has little to do with actual tissue damage. Juch et al 2017 demonstrates this well with the article, Effect of Radiofrequency Denervation on Pain Intensity Among Patients with Chronic Low Back pain. The study aimed to evaluate effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation in addition to exercise vs exercise alone. Radiofrequency denervation attempts to prevent the conduction of nociceptive signals by utilizing an electrical current to damage nerve conduction. The authors’ primary outcome was pain intensity.  

Authors’ Conclusions:

“In 3 randomized clinical trials of participants with chronic low back pain originating in the facet joints, sacroiliac joints, or a combination of facet joints, sacroiliac joints, or intervertebral disks, radiofrequency denervation combined with a standardized exercise program resulted in either no improvement or no clinically important improvement in chronic low back pain compared with a standardized exercise program alone. The findings do not support the use of radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain from these sources.”

What does all this mean? More support that in the cases of chronic pain – it is unlikely any specific tissue is responsible as a “pain-driver”.

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 6.18.23 PM

Shifting back to this graphic, chronic pain can be examined from a top down approach. Pain is interpreted in the brain and subjective to the person’s experiences and perception of the perceived issue. Chronic pain is often task specific, meaning a painful experience becomes associated with particular movements (example would be a person bending over to pick an item up from the ground and experiences low back pain).  

One primary issue that faces the entire field of healthcare and quite possibly has contributed heavily to the opioid epidemic is how we frame chronic pain issues to patients.  

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 3.02.37 PM

Attempting to apply a biomedical lens to the situation places the patient in a diagnostic box that can have long lasting negative effects.

Since we know chronic pain has little to do with actual tissue damage, assigning a structural label to the issue does not make sense (albeit necessary for most insurance companies). Applying such a label can be quite damning to the patient’s psyche. Cohen 2011 discusses the issue as a stigmatization of the patient which impedes our ability to be empathetic to the person.

Stigmatization is defined as,

“Process by which the reactions of a community to a specific personal characteristic(s) reduces a person’s identity from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one, causing that person to be discredited, devalued, rejected, and socially excluded from having a voice.”

Instead of focusing our attention on the whole person, we become fixated on the scarlet letter (diagnosis) the patient bears on their chest.

All of our efforts become dedicated in mitigating the person’s pain. Better put, we attempt to control their pain instead of viewing the whole person in front of us.

Attempting to gain control over the patient’s pain likely will lead to misguided problem solving resulting in unnecessary (possibly excessive) use of interventions and amplification of the patient’s worry about their perceived issue when improvement isn’t reached.

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 3.05.04 PMThe intensification of the patient’s worry may perpetuate their distress and disability snowballing into a hypervigilant state of awareness to their pain. Durnez et al comes to the conclusion –

“The reported findings thus–preliminary—suggest that interventions, designed to directed patient’s focus away from pain control and towards acceptance are a step in the right direction.”

Distraction from pain? This is likely what many interventions are doing, see Birnie et al.

Acceptance of pain – A novel approach that would likely diminish the need for many non-efficacious treatments aimed at simply mitigating pain.  

This approach is gaining traction as discussions have been ongoing about the removal of pain as the 5th vital sign.

Perhaps we are not asking the right questions in rehab.

Sullivan 2006 questions the efficacy of regularly asking a patient about their pain level in the article, The Influence of Communication Goals and Physical Demands on Different Dimension of Pain Behavior?

Pain demands attention, and if we are consistently polling our patients about their pain levels then we are likely reinforcing their attentional focus to pain, perpetuating a hypervigilant state and somatic awareness.  

Now that we’ve discussed framing the issue, what can be done to treat patients dealing with chronic pain issues.  

Many of the topics addressed when dealing with an acute pain issue will also be covered when treating chronic pain.  

  1. Reassure/Set expectations
  2. Violate beliefs
  3. Decrease Kinesiophobia
  4. Aid with catastrophic thinking
  5. Guide the path to the goals
  6. Minimize dependency.

As clinicians, we are tasked with setting patient’s expectations. As we discussed in acute pain issues, this can simply be the reassurance the issue they are dealing with will improve.  Improvement is specific and meaningful to the patient. This could mean pain improvement or functional improvement. Geurts et al completed a phenomenal systematic review on managing patient expectations for chronic non-cancer pain.

The authors define expectations as “…a strong belief that something will happen or be the case.” They expand on expectations, “Related to anticipation, this implies that expectations are created and sustained by a cognitive process. An event, however, can be desired but not expected, for example ‘I desire to be cured after treatment but I expect only minor pain reduction.’”

The authors define 4 types of expectations:

  1. Ideal: “…visions, aspirations, needs, hopes, and desires, related to the patient’s views of the potential for a service.”
  2. Normative: “…expectations about what should or ought to happen, mostly derived from what users are told, or led to believe, or think that they out (or to which one has a right) to receive form health services.”
  3. Predicted: “….beliefs about what will actually happen and are likely to result from personal experiences, reported experiences of others and other sources of knowledge such as in the media.”
  4. Unformed: “….not articulated expectations.”

The findings on  expectations are based on the structure, process, and outcome of care.


The authors findings:

Structure expectations “Patients expressed the desirability of fellow patient involvement in a chronic pain management service, mostly to support the patients in their contact with the professionals and achieve validation of their pain problem. Further structure expectations were desirability of efficient flow of patients through the system and need for accessibility, for example parking places nearby and variable opening times.”
Process expectations “Regarding process expectations, explanation or improved understanding of the pain problem was expressed as a necessity; validation or acknowledgement of the pain problem was expressed mostly as a normative expectation, and to get a proper diagnosis was stated as an ideal expectation.”
Outcome Expectations “Within each setting of care delivery, that is primary care, CAM, surgery, rehabilitation, pain centres, most CNCP patients expected pain relief; however, some patients did not expect pain relief but expressed the desire and need for physical improvement and being able to walk with the grandkids for instance, or do daily living chores without limitations. Some patients expressed the need to learn to cope with the CNCP, or to learn tools for better control of the complaints.”

Overall the review found chronic non-cancer pain patients’ expectations are related to outcome expectations. Which means we should frame the outcome of care early on as self-management.

The authors had a final thought on expectations as they relate to clinical practice:

“Understanding the expectations and needs of patients is essential in shared decision making. Therefore, it is important to differentiate between the types of expectations. In particular, the difference between value and predicted expectations is important in clinical practice. Value expectations are ideals, and predicted expectations are the more realistic expectations. This review gives an indication that the association between high expectations and a better outcome is present when assessing predicted (i.e more realistic) expectations. In contrast, no association was found between high ideal expectations and better outcome. Patients’ predicted expectations for a specific treatment can be altered by information from the professional about the evidence for potential benefits and harms of a treatment for an individual patient. Management of expectations before and during pain management could be an important contribution to patients’ satisfaction by lowering predicted expectations that are too high or heighten predicted expectations that are too low. Differentiating between types of expectations could also be important if patients are in the process of accepting the pain better and consequently struggling less with the pain. The pain management challenge should be to provide a personalized pain management programme without obstructing the patient’s pain acceptance process. In shared decision making, it is likely that the process of pain acceptance is supported if predominantly predicted expectations are discussed.”

Setting expectations can also be influenced by the diagnostic narrative provided to patients. A chronic pain case that is provided with a biomedical problem may diminish the success of conservative management by setting the expectation a tissue structure needs to be altered for relief to occur. Here is a study by Cuff and Littlewood, discussing the topic as it relates to subacromial impingement syndrome. 9 patients were interviewed about their diagnostic experience, understanding of the problem, and expectation of treatment required.  

Granted this is a qualitative study on a small sample size, the findings are enlightening to how narratives affect a cascade of interventions.

The authors found:

“All of the patients (9/9) in this study described their understanding of the problem in a consistent way aligned with a biomedical understanding of the model of SIS:

‘It is the tendon being caught by this piece of bone and wearing it away.’.

‘He said there was some impingement that could have been inflammation from irritation in the shoulder…things stopping my arm actually moving the way it should … I could just picture something just in the joint that got in the way at a certain point and was making it difficult for the socket to move in the way it should be moving’.

Authors: “As might be expected, it was evident that patients expected treatment that was aligned to their understanding of the problem; the treatment needed to match the cause for it to be deemed worthwhile.”

Most (7/9) participants reported this directly:
‘(How are we going to get this pain to go away?) By removing this piece
of bone.’

Authors: “Further, linked with patient understanding and expectations, in some circumstances there appears to be direct implications for physiotherapy management in terms of how the participants perceived the potential effectiveness of physiotherapy, with some (5/9) questioning the appropriateness:

‘If there is a physical lump or something there, all the Physiotherapy in the world isn’t going to resolve that if that doesn’t disappear. He said that it was quite likely in my case that I might well need some keyhole surgery…’.

We have a slightly larger cross-sectional qualitative study by Setchell et al that assessed 130 participants’ patterns of thinking (discourses) patients stated caused their recurrent low back pain and the origin of their narrative (healthcare provider, internet, family, friends, or other).

The authors identified four discourses from the answers to question 1: “What is your understanding of why your low back pain is persisting or recurring?”

The predominant discourse given was ‘body as machine” and was found in almost all responses. Of the 130 participants, 116 (89%) stated their narrative came from a healthcare provider.

Here are two participant responses:  

Participant 3:

“Degeneration of the integrity of my tendons and ligaments from faulty collagen due to Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome causing instability in my spine (and other joints) resulting in herniation of spinal discs (currently 3 cervical, 1 thoracic and 2 lumbar) and degenerative disc disease at L5/S1. Also sacroiliac joint dysfunction, hip dysplasia and instability has a correlating impact to my back issues.”

Participant 59:

“My motor control has suffered due to chronic low back pain initially caused by an injury and then perpetuated by degeneration in the joints. Even though there is no acute injury any more (arthritis is still there), my motor patterns are inefficient and I recruit larger muscles to stabilise my back due to pain inhibition. This means sometimes I do movements that are actually more forceful that needed and increase joint loading at the degenerating level, which is what causes a flare up.”

The authors found many participant responses included biomedical lexicon such as joint/muscle/nerve injury and disease, postural issues, and inflammatory conditions.  Some examples included: “fusion surgery leading to sacroiliac joint problems”, “my L4 and L5 are rubbing together”, “spinal damage caused by arthritis”, and “spondylolisthesis L5S1 with pars defect”.  

Based on this article, people’s beliefs about their chronic low back pain primarily originated from healthcare providers and were anchored to a biomedical model.  Studies such as this one demonstrate the importance of disseminating the most evidentially supported information we currently have available as clinicians. Additionally, this study sheds light on how our narratives influence the beliefs of our patients and may perpetuate an external locus of control affecting pain management. A narrative rooted in biomechanical lexicon may instill the belief something is wrong with the patient which requires correcting. Although biology will remain a correlate, research continues to demonstrate psychological and sociological factors may play an equally important part, if not greater. As clinicians, research like this will continue to challenge our beliefs about pathologies and biological issues necessitating care or perpetuating a therapeutic illusion.

We have more evidence to how are words can affect treatment selection from Nickel et al, Review question – How do different terminologies given to the same condition influence treatment or management decision making?

The authors conclude:

This review suggests that the terminology used to describe a condition can influence patient preferences for management and related outcomes. Although further evidence is needed to help better understand precisely why some terms elicited stronger preferences for more invasive management, this review helps support the calls for changing the terminology of conditions where the risk of progression is low. Changing the terminology in low-risk conditions or conditions with indolent clinical course may be a potential communication strategy to help shift assumptions that immediate invasive treatments or tests are always needed, allow for better shared decision making between clinicians and patients and the consideration of more conservative management options.”

We also have evidence from Barsky – The Iatrogenic Potential of the Physician’s’ Words; discussing how our words can make symptoms worse via viscerosomatic amplification. From the article –

“Some of the information that physicians convey to their Patients can inadvertently amplify patients’ symptoms and become a source of heightened somatic distress, an effect that must be understood by physicians to ensure optimal management of patient care. This effect illustrates the iatrogenic potential of information, as opposed to the iatrogenic potential of drugs and procedures. Somatic symptoms and underlying disease do not have a fixed, invariable, one-to-one equivalence. Symptoms can occur in the absence of demonstrable disease, ‘silent’ disease occurs without symptoms, and there is substantial interindividual variability in the symptoms resulting from the same pathology or pathophysiology. One mediator of this variability between symptoms and disease is the patient’s thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. These cognitions can amplify symptoms and bodily distress. Although cognitions may not cause symptoms, they can amplify, perpetuate, and exacerbate them, making symptoms more salient, noxious, intrusive, and bothersome.”

Our narrative can also positively influence behavior.  

We know setting appropriate expectations matter, but how can we go about doing this in clinic.

Research is elucidating three ways in which expectations can be set to improve outcomes: verbal, imagery, and conditioning.  Peerdeman 2016 and 2017 discuss how each component for setting expectations can relieve pain.

Peerdeman discusses simply suggesting verbally to a patient treatment outcomes will consist of analgesia sets the expectation pain relief will be achieved and thus the expected outcome is reached. Similarly, conditioning aids with pain relief.  Peerdeman provides the example, “..pairing a placebo treatment with reduced pain stimulation can produce expected and experienced pain relief when merely receiving the placebo treatment.” In other words, verbally suggesting a treatment will relieve pain and then conditioning the patient to the treatment increases the likelihood the expected outcome (analgesia) will occur.

This certainly calls into question the ethics of what a patient becomes conditioned to.

Finally, Peerdeman demonstrated mental imagery can also have an effect on pain reduction.  Mental imagery is defined as purposefully thinking about a desired outcome or future event.  

In a 2017 study, he demonstrates: “Placebo-like expectancy effects on pain can be induced not only by instructions, direct experience, and observation of other people, but also by mental imagery of a response (simulated experience).”  So, imagining pain reduction before an experience deemed a provocateur of pain, likely will have an analgesic effect.

Setting expectations is one of the most important, but often underutilized, aspects of our jobs as clinicians.  

Bialosky JE et al discuss how expectations are important in the management of musculoskeletal pain in the article,  Individual Expectation: An Overlooked, but Pertinent Factor in the Treatment of Individuals Experiencing Musculoskeletal Pain..

They discuss the mechanisms of expectation. The authors describe a study by Flood et al which suggested, “….expectation alters musculoskeletal pain in 5 ways:

  1. Promoting a physiological response,
  2. Increasing motivation to participate in a designated program,
  3. Conditioning an individual to focus on specific aspects of a disorder while ignoring others,
  4. Changing a patient’s understanding of the disorder, and
  5. Mediating anxiety to decrease or alleviate pain.”

Unfortunately, so far we do not have a definitive and efficacious means of measuring expectations in the clinic. However, the authors discuss suggestions like this: “At the end of 4 weeks of physical therapy, what do you expect will be the pain associated with your low back condition?”

They also recommend asking functionally relevant questions,

“At the end of 4 weeks of physical therapy, what do you expect will be your ability to play golf?”

Clinicians could use a numerical rating scale where 0 indicating no worse/no better and 10 indicating completely worse/completely better.

Building from Peardeman’s previously discussed work, we have an article by Hedderson et al, Expectancy Reduces Symptoms but not Functional Impairment Following Exercise-induced Musculoskeletal Injury. This article demonstrates how positive expectations can even affect a sham treatment. The authors induced musculoskeletal injury via exercise overload to bicep brachii. Two groups were formed: Positive Expectation group and No Expectation group. Both groups received instructions prior to sham treatment via a laser.

Positive expectation group told, ““Hello, I have extensive experience with using the therapeutic laser and you can expect the treatment to significantly decrease your pain level and speed your recovery”.

The No Expectation group was told:

“You will undergo a therapeutic treatment for your impairment and since this is a

scientific study I will not be able to speak with you during the treatment”.


“The PE group perceived less pain in their biceps muscle when

compared to the NE group at 48-hr post-injury [(p<0.05), 34.65mm (SE=4.44mm) vs. group 49.4mm (SE=5.79mm)] respectively.”

Now functionally there was no significant difference between groups, which makes sense because the placebo is altering perception and symptoms rather than actual tissue.

Just another example of how our language utilized in clinic with patients has the potential to both mitigate symptoms and enhance effectiveness of interventions to mitigate symptoms. However, this has the potential to unnecessarily condition patients to us as clinicians and non-efficacious interventions. Which means we need to proceed with caution when dealing with chronic pain patients.

Next, let’s examine kinesiophobia, fear-avoidance, and violating beliefs (these three objectives can be rolled into one). We asclinicians often set the tone for movement parameters during rehab.  The unfortunate mistake many of us make is setting these parameters too strictly. In doing so we can perpetuate kinesiophobia. Kinesiophobia is defined as, “An excessive, irrational and debilitating fear of physical movement and activity resulting from a feeling of vulnerability to painful injury or re-injury.”  

Text neck is a great example of how we can be well meaning with the delivery of a poor narrative.  Sure, staring down at an iphone for 3 hours straight will likely manifest some muscular discomfort but that doesn’t mean a person should never look down but instead would be better served to change positions regularly.  Sim

ilarly is the discussion of posture (we’ve talked about this previously – see here).  We’d likely better serve our patients by providing multiple alternatives of completing a movement rather than acting as the Procrustean arbiters of movement. As a side note – variability inmovement has been demonstrated to enhance learning 

in the early stages (see Wu 2015 and Dhawale 2017).

The Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale is an outcome assessment that can be utilized to assess a patient’s beliefs about movement.  Bunzil et al 2015 did a qualitative analysis study on the TSK and found two beliefs that can be assessed with the form:

  1. Painful activity will result in damage
  2. Painful activity will increase suffering and/or functional loss

The TSK can provide integral information that can allow for educational opportunities with patients in order to reframe these limiting beliefs.

Kinesiophobia is also being examined as a major correlate of how acute musculoskeletal pain becomes chronic and disability is perpetuated in spite of damaged tissue healing.

Suarez et al completed a review regarding kinesiophobia in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) to:

  1. Assess the association between kinesiophobia and pain, disability, and quality of life and
  2. Evaluate the prognostic value of kinesiophobia on pain, disability, quality of life in people with CMP.

Their findings:

  • Greater degree of kinesiophobia is associated with greater levels of pain intensity, pain severity, disability, and a lower quality of life.
  • The evaluation of the prognostic value of kinesiophobia demonstrated greater levels of kinesiophobia at baseline predicted higher levels of disability, pain severity, and lower quality of life at 6-month follow-up.

The authors conclude:

“The results of this systematic review encourage clinicians to evaluate kinesiophobia in patients with CMP, as the presence of kinesiophobia can impact on adherence to exercise therapy and may require specific management strategies such as the selection of functional goals, education to manage safe behaviours and graded exposure to feared activities.”

Kinesiophobia directly ties into the fear avoidance model of treatment. Vlaeyen 2016 discusses the development of fear avoidance behavior based on how a person approaches a task. Fear is defined as, “The anticipatory emotional response to imminent threat, and adaptive learning takes place rapidly, either through direct experience, observation, or verbal instructions.”    

The fear avoidance model states chronic pain development can be perpetuated based on how the person approaches a task: obstacle or challenge and whether they view it as a high threat or low threat. Here is where we can begin aiding patients with task specific learned responses. If a patient experiences a noxious stimulus interpreted as pain and that experience is viewed as a high threat then the patient will likely prioritize pain control as their primary directive.  Given the experience has been labeled a high threat, it is likely the patient will assign a negative affect (emotional association) to the task and view it as harmful to their body. An experience attached with pain, high threat value, and perceived harm to the body will perpetuate a cascade of fear → avoidance → interference → negative affect → leading back to pain. This cycle will likely lead many patients to completely disengage from any experience previously viewed as painful.  

We can aid patients in relearning a response to a particular task by regressing a movement/task to a low threat environment. Transitioning a patient’s response to chronic pain from high threat to low threat will require some time violating beliefs and setting expectations. With education, exposure to the situation, and time the patient can shift their understanding and response to a low threat value; allowing the situation to be viewed as a challenge rather than an obstacle. Once the patient views the previously painful experience as low threat, they can prioritize life goals while assigning a positive emotional response to the situation. The patient’s optimism of the situation will then allow them to adequately approach a challenge, complete the task, and recover afterwards leading to an altered learned response. This is also a great reason why chronic pain patients, within reason, can perform rehabilitative exercise into pain. A study by Smith et al 2017 discusses the topic of exercising chronic pain patients into pain. Their overall findings revealed a small benefit in the short term (less than 3 months) but no medium or long term effect. Given chronic pain has little to do with biomedical problems, this is likely a result of instilling the mindset of acceptance of pain rather than being controlled by pain. Reducing the mentality “hurt equals harm”, and mitigating kinesiophobia and fear-avoidance while building self-efficacy. An easy way to assess fear avoidance behavior is with the Fear Avoidance Behavior Questionnaire (FABQ) from Waddell et al 1993.

Another component of treatment for chronic pain based issues is addressing pain catastrophizing.  Sullivan 2001 discusses pain catastrophizing and defines the issue as follows, “Catastrophizing has been broadly conceived as an exaggerated negative “mental set” brought to bear during actual or anticipated pain experience.”

Catastrophizing has been demonstrated to:

  • Heighten pain experience
  • Be predictive of future pain experiences
  • Increase pain intensity
  • Increase duration of hospital stay
  • Increase use of analgesics/OTCs
  • Increase visits to clinicians, and
  • Heighten perceived disability

Three major components of catastrophizing include magnification, rumination, and helplessness.  

Magnification means the patient’s perception of the experience will be amplified – which is more reason for us as clinicians to remain calm throughout the process and reassure while setting expectations.  Rumination implies the patient will perseverate on the topic of perceived issue and pain will often be the primary focus of daily attention. Helplessness is one of the strongest arguments for utilizing treatments designed to build an internal locus of control of the patient.  We discussed this topic earlier in the blog regarding learned helplessness. To reiterate, the patient believes pain and their situation is not within their control and requires outside assistance. This further demonstrates why a primary part of rehabilitative treatment for chronic pain should minimize dependency.

An easy outcome assessment to administer for catastrophizing can be found in the Pain Catastrophizing Scale User Manual.  

Now onto the nitty gritty of treating chronic pain. Typically chronic pain will follow a standard regression to the mean presentation. Regression to the mean has been discussed in a previous blog (read here) but is worth revisiting.  

Whitney 1992 discusses the concept of regression to the mean and demonstrates a typical timeline of chronic pain.  

Patients seeking treatment for a painful issue will usually do so when their pain exceeds their subjective tolerance level after a painful event  – think of this as the patient who comes in “throwing their back-out” a few times a year. The patient will seek care hoping to find pain relief but based on cyclical variation of pain, their pain will likely reduce back to baseline regardless of what is done during their peak pain experience. Statistically we discuss this as regression to the mean because if a variable (pain) is at its extreme during the first measurement (initial consult) then there is high likelihood upon the second measurement the variable will be closer to average/baseline.  Regression to the mean will mask true effects of a treatment modality and demonstrate false efficacy for utilization.

However, all is not lost.  There are plenty of things we can do as clinicians while regression is occurring, Whitney articulates this well – “Among patient groups in whom significant regression to the mean occurs, the natural process of improvement may provide opportunities to reinforce patient self-care behaviors and enhance patient beliefs in their own abilities to control pain, rather than reinforcing patient beliefs in the efficacy of medical care for chronic pain.  If so, the phenomenon of regression to the mean may have the potential to enhance patient autonomy in managing chronic pain just as it may now contribute to the dependency of pain patients on health care providers.”

We cannot discuss treatments without bringing up placebos and nocebos.  

Testa 2016 discusses the topics of placebo and nocebo and the associated determining factors in the paper, Enhance placebo, avoid nocebo: How contextual factors affect physiotherapy outcomes.  

A placebo translates to the phrase, “I shall please” and has been previously defined as an inert substance incapable of eliciting actual effects.  However, placebo likely requires a revamping as research continues to elucidate there is a placebo effect that occurs (regardless if a population is aware the substance is placebo or not) and likely leads to analgesia. Testa states a placebo, “….is created by a positive psychosocial context capable of influencing a patient’s brain.”  Placebos have been prevalent throughout the history of the medical field. As discussed by Geuter et al 2017, “Placebos—sham medical treatments—have been used throughout the history of medicine to ‘gratify’ patients.. Egyptian patients were treated with balms as various as lizard’s blood, crocodile dung, and the teeth of swine. According to Shapiro, industrial-age Europeans administered equally colorful treatments, ranging from animal (earthworms, wood lice) to uniquely human (saliva of a fasting man, powdered mummy). Naturally, it is only with the hindsight of modern medicine that we recognize these treatments as shams; but we are not immune to using sham treatments even today. Notable sports stars regularly use so-called energy bracelets and necklaces to improve their performance. Widely used procedures like arthroscopic knee surgery and spinal steroid injections have been found to perform no better than placebo (Bicket et al. 2013, Moseley et al. 2002). And physicians still prescribe placebos regularly (Linde et al. 2014), presumably for the same reasons as they have throughout history: to provide care and convince the patient, and the world, that things will get better.”  

At this point, it is an acceptable premise to hold in  clinical practice – “I’m a placebo”.

Placebo effects are going to occur because a patient is seeking knowledge from a position of perceived authoritarianism – the question becomes can we ethically maximize the effects without creating a dependency. A new phrase that has began emerging in clinician narratives is neurophysiological effects. Finniss et al’s 2010 paper makes neurophysiological effects sound a lot like placebo effects. Again, we likely need a new definition for these two terms placebo and neurophysiological. I’m a biased fan of this definition, “Any primed non-threatening sensory stimuli to the nervous system affecting the patient’s psyche which elicits a desired outcome.”

Returning to ethics, any modality geared at enhancing the placebo/neurophysiological effect increasing likelihood of creating patient to clinician or patient to modality dependency should be minimized; not only for financial loss but also loss of time (a commodity we can not manufacture).

On the opposite end of the spectrum are nocebo effects.  Nocebo translates to “I shall harm” and Testa states these effects occur as “….the result of negative ritual and therapeutic act on the patient’s mind and body”.  These can likely perpetuate hyperalgesia. Utilizing a modality for chronic pain geared at pain reduction can create a false dependency and perpetuate learned helplessness likely having nocebo effects.  Nocebo effects occur from such interventions because patients develop the belief without those treatments relief will not occur and their only solution is being taken from them. If we continue to treat chronic pain as something from the outside is required to “fix” the issue then we are perpetuating an external locus of control and unnecessary use of interventions; robbing patients of time and autonomy, equalling harm. Harm is multifaceted and not simply increasing symptomatology.  The belief a modality is needed for relief can perpetuate symptoms long term. Our attention would be better served aiding patients in learning self-care while instilling an internal locus of control.

As clinicians attempting to accomplish long term outcomes and patient independence, we should take great care in minimizing these unnecessary effects.  

Finally, a keystone to treating any pain based issue is our therapeutic alliance with the patient.  

Martin 2000 defines therapeutic alliance as, “The collaborative and affective bond between clinician and patient.”  The quality of the therapeutic alliance is more important than the type of treatment selected in predicting positive patient outcomes.

There are three components to therapeutic alliance:

  1. Affective bond between clinician and patient
  2. Patient’s and clinician’s ability to agree on treatment goals and tasks
  3. Collaborative nature of the relationship

Coupled together, these components strengthen our therapeutic alliance with the patient and allow for a team based approach to be taken towards meeting the patient’s goals.  

In summary, treating pain is a tricky business BUT we are starting to understand the complexity of the issue.  

This blog is by NO means a complete guide to pain science and we strongly encourage all readers to regularly read current best research evidence on the topic.  

If there is a primary takeaway from this blog – OUR WORDS MATTER.

Words are our most important tool in our toolbox and they will reach far into the future, well beyond any other modality.  All the more reason to ensure we are delivering the most current best research evidence on the topic at hand and minimizing the delivery of false narratives.  

As always, if you want to discuss the article with us on Twitter, or just recommend a beer for us to try you can find us at:




  1. Sullivan MJ. Toward a biopsychomotor conceptualization of pain: implications for research and intervention. The Clinical journal of pain. 2008; 24(4):281-90.
  2. Editorial The need of a taxonomy Pain. 1979; 6(3):247-252.
  3. Williams AC, Craig KD. Updating the definition of pain. Pain. 2016; 157(11):2420-2423.
  4. Williams AC. Facial expression of pain: an evolutionary account. The Behavioral and brain sciences. 2002; 25(4):439-55; discussion 455-88.
  5. Cohen M, Quintner J, van Rysewyk S. Reconsidering the International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain PAIN Reports. 2018; 3(2):e634-.
  6. Martin DJ, Garske JP, Davis MK. Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 2000; 68(3):438-50.
  7. Eccleston C, Crombez G. Pain demands attention: a cognitive-affective model of the interruptive function of pain. Psychological bulletin. 1999; 125(3):356-66.
  8. Durnez W, Van Damme S. Let it be? Pain control attempts critically amplify attention to somatosensory input. Psychological research. 2017; 81(1):309-320.
  9. Hauck M, Domnick C, Lorenz J, Gerloff C, Engel AK. Top-down and bottom-up modulation of pain-induced oscillations. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2015; 9:375.
  10. Nicolardi V, Valentini E. Commentary: Top-down and bottom-up modulation of pain-induced oscillations. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2016; 10:152.
  11. Gabbett TJ. The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter harder? Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50(5):273-280.
  12. Treede R, Rief W, Barke A, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11 PAIN. 2015;
  13. Steingrímsdóttir ÓA, Landmark T, Macfarlane GJ, Nielsen CS. Defining chronic pain in epidemiological studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2017; 158(11):2092-2107.
  14. Esteve R, Bendayan R, López-Martínez AE, Ramírez-Maestre C. Resilience and Vulnerability Factors When Pain is Acute as Predictors of Disability: Findings From a Two-Year Longitudinal Study . 2017; 18(11):2116-2125.
  15. Chapman CR, Vierck CJ. The Transition of Acute Postoperative Pain to Chronic Pain: An Integrative Overview of Research on Mechanisms The Journal of Pain. 2017; 18(4):359.e1-359.e38.
  16. Juch JNS, Maas ET, Ostelo RWJG, et al. Effect of Radiofrequency Denervation on Pain Intensity Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: The Mint Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA. 2017; 318(1):68-81.
  17. Cohen M, Quintner J, Buchanan D, Nielsen M, Guy L. Stigmatization of patients with chronic pain: the extinction of empathy. Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.). 2011; 12(11):1637-43.
  18. Birnie KA, Chambers CT, Spellman CM. Mechanisms of distraction in acute pain perception and modulation PAIN. 2017; 158(6):1012-1013.
  19. Sullivan MJ, Thibault P, Savard A, Catchlove R, Kozey J, Stanish WD. The influence of communication goals and physical demands on different dimensions of pain behavior. Pain. 2006; 125(3):270-7.
  20. Geurts JW, Willems PC, Lockwood C, van Kleef M, Kleijnen J, Dirksen C. Patient expectations for management of chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2017; 20(6):1201-1217.
  21. Cuff A, Littlewood C. Subacromial impingement syndrome – What does this mean to and for the patient? A qualitative study Musculoskeletal Science and Practice. 2018; 33:24-28.
  22. Setchell J, Costa N, Ferreira M, Makovey J, Nielsen M, Hodges PW. Individuals’ explanations for their persistent or recurrent low back pain: a cross-sectional survey BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18(1).
  23. Thomas KB. The consultation and the therapeutic illusion. British medical journal. 1978; 1(6123):1327-8.
  24. Nickel B, Barratt A, Copp T, Moynihan R, McCaffery K. Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences. BMJ open. 2017; 7(7):e014129.
  25. Barsky AJ. The Iatrogenic Potential of the Physician’s Words JAMA. 2017; 318(24):2425-.
  26. Peerdeman KJ, van Laarhoven AI, Keij SM, et al. Relieving patients’ pain with expectation interventions: a meta-analysis. Pain. 2016; 157(6):1179-91.
  27. Peerdeman KJ, van Laarhoven AIM, Bartels DJP, Peters ML, Evers AWM. Placebo-like analgesia via response imagery. European journal of pain (London, England). 2017; 21(8):1366-1377.
  28. Geurts JW, Willems PC, Lockwood C, van Kleef M, Kleijnen J, Dirksen C. Patient expectations for management of chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review Health Expect. 2017; 20(6):1201-1217.
  29. Hedderson WC, Dover GC, George SZ, Crow JA, Borsa PA. Expectancy Reduces Symptoms but not Functional Impairment Following Exercise Induced Musculoskeletal Injury The Clinical Journal of Pain. 2017;
  30. Bunzli S, Smith A, Watkins R, Schütze R, O’Sullivan P. What Do People Who Score Highly on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia Really Believe?: A Mixed Methods Investigation in People With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain. The Clinical journal of pain. 2015; 31(7):621-32.
  31. Wu HG, Miyamoto YR, Castro LNG, Ölveczky BP, Smith MA. Temporal structure of motor variability is dynamically regulated and predicts motor learning ability Nat Neurosci. 2014; 17(2):312-321.
  32. Dhawale AK, Smith MA, Ölveczky BP. The Role of Variability in Motor Learning Annu. Rev. Neurosci.. 2017; 40(1):479-498.
  33. Luque-Suarez A, Martinez-Calderon J, Falla D. Role of kinesiophobia on pain, disability and quality of life in people suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review Br J Sports Med. 2018;
  34. Vlaeyen JW, Crombez G, Linton SJ. The fear-avoidance model of pain PAIN. 2016; 157(8):1588-1589.
  35. Smith BE, Hendrick P, Smith TO, et al. Should exercises be painful in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of sports medicine. 2017; 51(23):1679-1687.
  36. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993; 52(2):157-68.
  37. Sullivan MJ, Thorn B, Haythornthwaite JA, et al. Theoretical perspectives on the relation between catastrophizing and pain. The Clinical journal of pain. 2001; 17(1):52-64.
  38. Whitney CW, Von Korff M. Regression to the mean in treated versus untreated chronic pain. Pain. 1992; 50(3):281-5.
  39. Testa M, Rossettini G. Enhance placebo, avoid nocebo: How contextual factors affect physiotherapy outcomes. Manual therapy. 2016; 24:65-74.
  40. Kaptchuk TJ, Friedlander E, Kelley JM, et al. Placebos without deception: a randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PloS one. 2010; 5(12):e15591.
  41. Geuter S, Koban L, Wager TD. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Placebo Effects: Concepts, Predictions, and Physiology. Annual review of neuroscience. 2017; 40:167-188.
  42. Finniss DG, Kaptchuk TJ, Miller F, Benedetti F. Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects The Lancet. 2010; 375(9715):686-695.