Pain neuroscience education combined with therapeutic exercises provides added benefit in the treatment of chronic neck pain
In short
Does adding pain neuroscience education to therapeutic exercises improve pain, disability, and psychological outcomes in people with chronic neck pain?
Combining pain neuroscience education with therapeutic exercises reduced pain-disability, pain catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance beliefs significantly more than exercises alone in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain. Pain self-efficacy improved in both treatment groups but did not differ statistically between them.
SupportsRead paper
Primary study72 ParticipantsModerate evidence
Key points
- Combined treatment (exercises plus pain neuroscience education) outperformed exercises alone on pain-disability, catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance beliefs after 6 weeks.
- Both intervention groups improved significantly on all four outcomes compared to a no-treatment control group.
- The largest between-group effect size was seen on the Neck Pain and Disability Scale: combined vs. control ES 5.91.
- Pain self-efficacy improved with both treatments (neither differed from the other, p = 0.99), but both were superior to control.
- No adverse events were reported; adherence was 94% (exercises alone) and 89% (combined group).
How it was conducted
- Design
- Three-arm randomized controlled trial
- Participants
- 72 adults aged 20-50 with chronic nonspecific neck pain for at least 3 months and moderate pain (30-70 on VAS); recruited from rehabilitation centres in Tehran, Iran
- Groups
- Therapeutic exercises alone (n=24), combined exercises plus pain neuroscience education (n=24), no-treatment control (n=24)
- Duration
- 6 weeks, 3 sessions per week; no follow-up beyond 6 weeks
- Primary outcomes
- Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ)
- Analysis
- Repeated Measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc correction; significance set at p = 0.05
What they found
- NPAD (disability): combined group improved from 52.86 to 23.50; exercises-alone from 52.55 to 35.50; control from 54.63 to 53.90. Combined vs. exercises-alone mean difference 5.84 (95% CI 3.09 to 8.67), ES 2.30, p = 0.001. Combined vs. control mean difference 16.09 (95% CI 13.24 to 18.98), ES 5.91, p = 0.001.
- PCS (catastrophizing): combined improved from 21.81 to 10.77; exercises-alone from 21.50 to 15.25; control from 22.63 to 20.59. Combined vs. exercises-alone mean difference 2.07 (95% CI 0.06 to 4.09), ES 1.85, p = 0.041. Combined vs. control mean difference 5.31 (95% CI 3.35 to 7.38), ES 4.17, p = 0.001.
- FABQ (fear-avoidance): combined improved from 50.40 to 29.09; exercises-alone from 48.15 to 37.20; control from 49.00 to 48.13. Combined vs. exercises-alone mean difference 2.92 (95% CI 0.06 to 5.78), ES 2.94, p = 0.044. Combined vs. control mean difference 8.81 (95% CI 6.06 to 11.61), ES 5.83, p = 0.001.
- PSEQ (self-efficacy): combined improved from 23.22 to 44.13; exercises-alone from 25.33 to 40.66; control from 24.62 to 25.20. Combined vs. exercises-alone mean difference -0.68 (95% CI -4.77 to 3.41), ES 0.41, p = 0.99 (not significant). Both intervention groups superior to control: exercises-alone vs. control mean difference 8.08 (95% CI 4.07 to 12.04), ES 2.50, p = 0.001.
- Repeated Measures ANOVA showed significant effect of time (p < 0.001), group (p < 0.001), and time-by-group interaction (p < 0.001) for all four outcomes.
- 7 of 72 patients withdrew before completing the intervention (3 exercises-alone, 2 combined, 2 control).
Limitations
- No follow-up beyond 6 weeks, so durability of benefits is unknown.
- Small sample size (24 per group) may limit generalisability to broader populations.
- No pain-neuroscience-education-alone group was included, preventing isolation of its independent effect.
- Outcomes were limited to psychosocial measures; muscle strength, range of motion, and quality of life were not assessed.
Why it matters
- For patients
- People with long-standing neck pain may benefit from learning about pain biology alongside exercise, as this combination reduced pain, disability, and the fear of movement more than exercise on its own.
- For clinicians
- Adding structured pain neuroscience education sessions to a 6-week cervical exercise programme produces statistically and clinically meaningful gains in disability and psychological outcomes compared with exercises alone, supporting a biopsychosocial approach.
- For readers
- This small RCT provides moderate evidence that pain education augments exercise therapy for chronic neck pain, though longer trials with follow-up are needed to confirm lasting benefit.
Source
doi:10.3390/ijerph18168848
Read the original paperClinically assessing this area? See the neck & cervical spine special tests.
More Neck & Cervical Spine studies
- Consensus-based dosage recommendations for sensorimotor training in the management of neck pain: a Delphi studyConsensus
- Risk stratification scoring system for femoral neck bony stress injuries in military recruits: a pilot studyPrimary study
- Physical and psychological predictors for persistent and recurrent non-specific neck pain: a systematic reviewSystematic review
- Effect of median nerve neural mobilisation and cervical lateral glide on pain, disability and function in nerve-related neck and arm pain: a systematic review and meta-analysisMeta-analysis
- Cervical flexion posture during smartphone use was not a risk factor for neck pain, but low sleep quality and insufficient physical activity were: a longitudinal investigationCohort study
- Combining evidence and practice to optimise neck training aimed at reducing head acceleration eventsPrimary study