Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is a major and highly prevalent health problem. Given the high number of papers available, clinicians might be overwhelmed by the evidence on CLBP management. Taking into account the scale and costs of CLBP, it is imperative that healthcare professionals have access to up-to-date, evidence-based information to assist them in treatment decision-making. Therefore, this paper provides a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence non-invasive rehabilitation for CLBP. Taking together up-to-date evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analysis and available treatment guidelines, most physically inactive therapies should not be considered for CLBP management, except for pain neuroscience education and spinal manipulative therapy if combined with exercise therapy, with or without psychological therapy. Regarding active therapy, back schools, sensory discrimination training, proprioceptive exercises, and sling exercises should not be considered due to low-quality and/or conflicting evidence. Exercise interventions on the other hand are recommended, but while all exercise modalities appear effective compared to minimal/passive/conservative/no intervention, there is no evidence that some specific types of exercises are superior to others. Therefore, we recommend choosing exercises in line with the patient’s preferences and abilities. When exercise interventions are combined with a psychological component, effects are better and maintain longer over time.

Nociplastic pain syndromes include particular fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, headache, complex regional pain syndrome, and idiopathic orofacial pain. Several mechanisms have been proposed to account for nociplastic pain including central sensitisation, alterations of pain modulatory controls, epigenetic changes, and peripheral mechanisms. Importantly, nociplastic pain might also be present in patients with cancer pain, particularly those with pain related to complications of cancer treatment. Increased awareness of nociplastic pain associated with cancer should have important implications for monitoring and managing such patients.

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.

This article explores the effectiveness of a newly developed Pain Neuroscience Education program for children (PNE4Kids) with functional abdominal pain disorder (FAPD). Children (6–12 years) with FAPD were randomly assigned to 1) the experimental group (n = 14), participating in one hypnotherapy session (i.e., usual care) and one additional PNE4Kids session, or 2) the control group (n = 14), participating in two hypnotherapy sessions. Parental pain catastrophizing, the child’s functional disability (parental-proxy), pain-related fear (parent-proxy) and pain intensity, were assessed at baseline and one and three weeks after each therapy session. Pressure algometry and a conditioned pain modulation paradigm were performed at baseline and three weeks after completion of the last therapy session. Parents from both the experimental as well as the control group showed significantly less parental pain catastrophizing (p < 0.01). Children showed significantly less functional disability (p < 0.05), pain-related fear (p < 0.01) and local pressure pain sensitivity (p < 0.05) at short-term follow-up (three weeks after last intervention) in both groups. No significant (p > 0.05) between-group differences were found. Hypnotherapy combined with PNE4Kids did not result in better clinical outcomes compared to hypnotherapy alone. Study limitations include the application of one single PNE4Kids session and the short follow-up time.

Objective: Whether parental presence during their children’s painful medical procedures is advantageous with regard to children’s pain-related outcomes is questionable. Research on this topic is equivocal, and additional questions, such as whether levels of parental involvement may play a role as well, remain to be addressed. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize and critically appraise the literature on the impact of parental presence vs absence during their children’s painful medical procedures on the child’s pain-related outcomes. Methods: The review protocol was registered on Prospero (ID CRD42018116614). A systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycArticles resulted in 22 eligible studies incorporating 2,157 participants. Studies were considered eligible if they included children (≤18 years old) undergoing a painful medical procedure and compared parental presence and/or involvement with parental absence during the procedure. Results: The children’s pain-related outcomes included self-reported pain intensity, self-reported fear, anxiety and distress, observed pain-related behavior, and physiological parameters. Overall, evidence points in the direction of beneficial effects of parental presence vs absence with regard to children’s self-reported pain intensity and physiological parameters, whereas mixed findings were recorded for children’s self-reported fears, anxiety and distress, and observed pain-related behaviors. Conclusions: To provide clear recommendations on how to involve the parent during the procedure, as well as for which type of children and parents parental presence has the best effects, further research is needed, as indicated in this review.

Pain affects everyone hence one can argue that it is in each individual’s interest to understand pain in order to hold correct and adaptive beliefs and attitudes about pain. In addition, chronic pain is reaching pandemic proportions and it is now well known that people living with chronic pain have a reduced life expectancy. To address and to prevent the growth of this public health disaster, we must start looking beyond adulthood. How children view pain has an impact on their behavioral coping responses which in turn predict persistent pain early in the lifespan. In addition, children who suffer from chronic pain and who are not (properly) treated for it before adolescence have an increased risk of having chronic pain during their adult life. Explaining pain to children and youth may have a tremendous impact not only on the individual child suffering from chronic pain but also on society, since the key to stop the pain pandemic may well lie in the first two decades of life. In order to facilitate the acquisition of adaptive behavioral coping responses, pain education aims to shift people’s view on pain from being an apparent threat towards being a compelling perceptual experience generated by the brain that will only arise whenever the conceivable proof of danger to the body is greater than the conceivable proof of safety to the body. Nowadays a lot of pain education material is available for adults, but it is not adapted to children’s developmental stage and therefore little or not suitable for them. An overview of the state-of-the-art pain education material for children and youth is provided here, along with its current and future areas of application as well as challenges to its development and delivery. Research on pediatric pain education is still in its infancy and many questions remain to be answered within this emerging field of investigation.