PTPilotThe Journal of school health2026

Improving Pain Literacy Among Future Educators: Contemporary Pain Neuroscience Education in Teacher Preparation.

Sue E Curfman, William J Best, Diana A Harrison and 2 others

PMID 42538134

WHAT IT FOUND

After two pain neuroscience sessions delivered by a physical therapist, all 15 education students improved pain beliefs, and most improved pain knowledge.

Confidence to discuss pain rose, while interest and usefulness stayed similar.

Key findings

01All 15 students improved pain beliefs after the two-session pain neuroscience module.

02Pain neuroscience knowledge improved, with marked increases in correct responses on four questionnaire items.

03Participants reported greater confidence discussing pain with future students, while interest and perceived usefulness stayed similar.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 15 first-year education students from a southeastern US course completed the module, so the results may not apply to in-service teachers or different schools. The paper reports a before-after pilot with no comparison group, so changes could reflect normal coursework, repeated testing, or other factors rather than the module alone. Outcomes were knowledge, beliefs, confidence, and open-ended responses; the study did not measure student pain, classroom behavior, attendance, or recovery. The module was delivered by an experienced physical therapist, and the paper does not show whether it works when delivered by teachers or other professionals. Interest and perceived usefulness medians did not change, and long-term follow-up was not assessed.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that this module improves student pain outcomes or classroom behavior. It measured only 15 education students' questionnaire scores before and after the module, with no comparison group, so the changes could reflect normal course effects, repeated testing, or selection.

Read it on PubMed →