Pain Neuroscience Education Delivered Through  Virtual Reality for Common Musculoskeletal  Conditions Seen in Physical Therapy: An Exploratory Study

Adriaan Louw; Kory Zimney; Daniel Stopher; K. Glen Saldanha; Jake Shockley; Lauren Elliott; Daniel Macera; Terry Cox

Pain Neuroscience Education Delivered Through Virtual Reality for Common Musculoskeletal Conditions Seen in Physical Therapy: An Exploratory Study

Adriaan Louw^1*, Kory Zimney², Daniel Stopher³, K. Glen Saldanha¹, Jake Shockley⁴, Lauren Elliott⁴, Daniel Macera⁵, Terry Cox⁶

¹Evidence in Motion Pain Felllowship, Story City IA, USA

²University of South Dakota, School of Health Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, Vermillion SD, USA

³ProRehab Physical Therapy, Lousville KY, USA

⁴Physical Therapy Central, Oklahoma City OK, USA

⁵PappasOPT Physical, Sports and Hand Therapy, Johnston RI, USA

⁶Southwest Baptist University, Bolivar MO, USA

^*Corresponding author: Adriaan Louw, Evidence in Motion Pain Fellowship, 618 Broad Street, Suite B, Story City, IA, 50248, USA.

Received Date: 28 April, 2023

Accepted Date: 03 May, 2023

Published Date: 05 May, 2023

Citation: Louw A, Zimney K, Stopher D, Saldanha KG, Shockley J, et al. (2023) Pain Neuroscience Education Delivered Through Virtual Reality for Common Musculoskeletal Conditions Seen in Physical Therapy: An Exploratory Study. Rep Glob Health Res 6: 157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29011/2690-9480.100157

Abstract

Treating persistent musculoskeletal pain in healthcare and globally is clinically challenging and emerging digital therapeutic treatments such as augmented and virtual reality may help ease this burden. Current best evidence supports pain neuroscience education (PNE) as a viable strategy to ease pain and disability of patients attending physical therapy with persistent musculoskeletal pain. The objective of this exploratory study was to determine what, if any, positive effects PNE delivered via virtual reality may yield on the four largest patient groups seen in physical therapy and healthcare in general – low back, neck, knee, and shoulder pain. Forty patients (10 patients each with low back, neck, knee, and shoulder pain) underwent a 12-minute PNE session following an in-person physical therapy session. Prior to and immediately following treatment, heart rate, self-reported pain ratings (numeric pain rating scale – NPRS), pain catastrophizing (pain catastrophization scale – PCS), fear-avoidance (fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire – FABQ) and active range of motion was measured. Additionally, the global rating of change (GROC) scale was used following treatment to assess the patient experience. No significant changes were found in heart rate and blood pressure. FABQ-PA (physical activity) improved significantly in patients with neck, shoulder, and back pain, with large effect sizes. PCS improved significantly (p = 0.034) for patients with low back pain, while only patients with shoulder pain showed a significant change in self-reported pain (p = 0.04). Active range of motion improved significantly in both peripheral joint patient populations (knee flexion [p = 0.003], knee extension [p = 0.002] and shoulder flexion [p = 0.023]), but not spinal patients (back and neck). Mean GROC scores for patients with shoulder (3.0) and knee pain (3.4) were above the minimal clinically important difference. This is the first study to explore PNE-VR for different body regions in patients with persistent pain attending PT. The largest positive shifts were seen for fear of physical activity. Patients with shoulder pain and disability received the greatest benefit from PNE-VR, followed by patients with LBP and knee pain. Future research is needed to develop, test and implement larger scale, controlled trails of virtual reality for patients seeking care for musculoskeletal pain in healthcare.

Keywords: Pain Neuroscience Education; Musculoskeletal Pain; Virtual Reality; Rehabilitation; Digital Therapeutics

Introduction

For persistent musculoskeletal pain, it is well-understood that a multi-model approach is needed [9-11]. Current bestevidence treatment for persistent musculoskeletal pain calls for an approach that contains three key elements - cognitive (education), movement, and strategies to calm down a sensitized central and peripheral nervous system [11-13]. Of the three proposed treatments, it is easily argued that PT is most familiar with, and uses movement as a mainstay of its treatment [14, 15]. Within this mandate, therapists can use various forms of movement considering comorbid issues, patient preferences, current best evidence, safety, etc [16]. In the last decade, the pharmaceutical industry has spent considerable time and resources developing ways to calm down the nervous system, i.e., membrane stabilizers, selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors, etc [17]. In rehabilitation, attention has also shifted to non-pharmacological treatment strategies to calm the central nervous system without the potential side effects of pharmaceuticals [18]. Emerging treatments and evidence supports the use of mindfulness-based stress reduction, breathing, sleep hygiene, relaxation, etc [18-20]. These treatments are now gaining more research and clinical interest from PT, thus fulfilling another one of the three key elements of a program aimed at persistent musculoskeletal pain and disability.

The third component, often used first to set the framework for movement and strategies to calm the nervous system, is education. The objective of the educational component is to change cognitions associated with pain, including high levels of fear-avoidance, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, poor or faulty beliefs about pain, trauma, etc [21, 22]. Most of these educational approaches in PT are borrowed from psychotherapy and may include cognitive behavioral therapy, trauma-informed care, acceptance and commitment therapy, motivational interviewing, positive psychology, etc [21, 23]. In recent years, pain neuroscience education (PNE) emerged from within PT to teach patients more about the biology and physiology of their underlying pain experience, explicitly aiming at persistent musculoskeletal pain [13, 21, 22]. Various systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown strong evidence that PNE positively influences self-rated pain scores, disability, fear-avoidance, and pain catastrophization [22, 24]. Furthermore, evidence indicates that PNE allows for improved movement and, when combined with movement, is superior to PNE-alone [13, 22, 24]. Additionally, the evidence shows PNE can also yield a calming effect on the nervous system as seen by increased pressure pain thresholds and improved neurodynamic tests of mechanosensitivity of the nervous system [22]. From a PT perspective, it is thus argued that PNE, along with various forms of movement and strategies to calm the nervous system, is in line with the current best evidence to treat persistent musculoskeletal pain.

The best-evidence approach for movement, education, and calming of the nervous system is exciting, yet a significant clinical barrier remains – clinical time to incorporate these approaches. In US PT clinics, most visits average around 30 minutes; thus, time is limited to provide reassessment, treatment, instruction, and review of home exercise programs [25-27]. This presents a clinical dilemma in delivering best-evidence multimodal approaches in limited clinical time, especially for more complex clinical cases such as persistent musculoskeletal pain. One possible emerging strategy is digital therapeutics. Digital therapeutics is a subset of digital health and aims to use digital technologies, including Internet-based health technologies, to treat patients [28]. Emerging digital therapeutics include applications, virtual and augmented reality, wearable technology, etc. [19, 29-31]. Because of the limited time in which clinicians have to treat patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain, digital therapeutics could potentially be utilized to help drive these evidence-based multimodal approaches [19, 31, 32]. In lieu of time constraints, it is argued that some treatments can be delivered in-person by the PT in the available time, i.e., exercise and hands-on therapies.

In contrast, some treatments can be added to a clinical setting via digital therapeutics, i.e., mindfulness, meditation, breathing, education, and more. In this model, a patient may receive a more comprehensive approach to treating their persistent pain and, at the same time, alleviate a clinical burden for the clinician. Recently, a PNE virtual reality (VR) program (PNE-VR) (BehaVR™) was developed to educate patients more about pain and early data showed similar positive changes compared to therapist-led treatment in self-reported pain ratings, fear-avoidance, and patient satisfaction [32]. Additionally, the platform adds other bestevidence strategies such as mindfulness and relaxation. To date, very little is known about the potential benefits of PNE-VR in PT practice. The primary aim of this exploratory case series was to determine what positive effects PNE-VR may yield on the four largest patient groups seen in PT – those with LBP, neck pain, knee pain, and shoulder pain. The secondary aim was to look for differences between diagnosis groups using PNE-VR.

Methods Patients

A convenience sample of forty consecutive patients attending outpatient PT were invited to participate in the study (Figure 1). This included 10 patients with LBP, 10 with neck pain, 10 with knee pain, and 10 with shoulder pain. Data collection was performed at 4 PT clinics in 4 different states (OK, KY, NC and RI) for 3 months. Each of these clinics have been using a recently developed PNE-VR program, which has been tested in some preliminary research [32]. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study at Southwest Baptist University. After an appropriate explanation of the study and obtaining informed written consent, patient demographic data were collected. Inclusion criteria were that patients be proficient in the English language, no precautions or contraindications specific for VR (i.e., pre-existing binocular vision abnormalities or seizures), be over the age of 18, present with pain and limited range of motion, and not pregnant at the time of the study. The study was designed as an exploratory case series with pre-and post-PNE-VR measurements.

Figure 1: Study Flow Chart (DASH = Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; LE = Lower extremity).

Intervention

The PNE-VR session was designed to be delivered after a patient’s planned PT session, thus not interfering with their current treatment plan. At the completion of their normal one-on-one session with the attending PT, patients were placed in a private treatment room for the PNE-VR session. The PNE-VR was delivered using a headset and earphones while a patient was seated in a comfortable chair (Figure 2). Patients were familiarized with the VR headset, navigating the VR dashboard the subject sees in the headset, and how to access each of the sessions utilizing a hand-held activator. The PNE-VR sessions were uploaded via a wireless signal to the headset and the subject used a hand-held activator to start, navigate and end their PNE session. The PT was not in the room during the PNE-VR. The software tracked the subject throughout the sessions, ensuring they fully complete each session. The VR system provides a total 360-degree immersion, including sound, as a means to provide a true sensory virtual environment. The total of the PNE-VR treatment session was 12 minutes to limit prolonged VR exposure and mimic typical in-person therapist-led PNE [25, 33]. The content of the PNEVR is in line with current one-on-one, clinician-led PNE research [22, 25]. The PNE-VR session included an introduction to PNE (1 minute), an introduction to the nervous system (3 minutes), a metaphor of the sensitive alarm system to educate patients on hyperalgesia and allodynia (2 minutes) [25]. A metaphor of the “nosy” neighbor to educate patients about spreading pain as a consequence of a sensitized nervous system (2 minutes), and strategies used to calm down a sensitized nervous system non-pharmacologically (4 minutes).

Figure 2: PNE-VR

Measurements

Before PNE-VR, patients completed a demographic survey including age, gender, duration of pain, race, level of education, employment status, past history of pain, previous surgery on the affected body area, the body part being treated, and family history of joint pain. For each of the four body regions, a disability score was obtained to describe further the cohort of patients in the study (Figure 1):

LBP (Oswestry Disability Index – ODI): The ODI is a validated, extensively utilized questionnaire for people who suffer from LBP. It consists of 10 items representing different health constructs (i.e., pain intensity, physical functioning, sleep functioning, social functioning). Each section is scored on a 0 to 5 rating scale, where zero means ‘No pain’ and 5 means ‘Worst imaginable pain’. The total score of the ODI is calculated by adding all scores of applicable items, dividing the obtained score by the maximal total score, and by multiplying the result by 100 to get a percentage score [34]. The higher the score, the higher the patient-determined disability [34, 35].

Neck Pain (Neck Disability Index – NDI): The NDI is a modification of the ODI questionnaire. It consists of a patient-completed, condition-specific, functional-status questionnaire with 10 items: pain, personal care, lifting, reading, headaches, concentration, work, driving, sleeping, and recreation. The NDI has sufficient support and usefulness to retain its current status as the most commonly used self-report measure for neck pain [36]. It is calculated the same way as the ODI. Each section is scored on a 0 to 5 rating scale, where zero means ‘No pain’ and 5 means ‘Worst imaginable pain’. The total score of the NDI is calculated by adding all scores of applicable items (total of 50 or 100% activity limitation) [37].

Knee Pain (Lower Extremity Functional Scale - LEFS): The LEFS is a 20-item valid patient-rated outcome measure for measuring lower extremity function for adults [38]. The LEFS has shown reliability and validity in measuring disability in lower extremity musculoskeletal conditions [39]. The questionnaire rates several functional tasks from “Extreme Difficulty” to “No Difficulty.” The maximum score is 80 points. The higher the score, the higher the function [38, 39].

Shoulder Pain (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire - QuickDASH): The QuickDASH is a validated, abbreviated version of the original DASH outcome measure. It is an 11-item questionnaire measuring the ability to perform functional tasks, absorb forces, and current symptoms. It uses a 1-5 rating scale. This questionnaire is used with anyone with upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, hand) pain or symptoms [40]. The higher the score, the greater the patientrated disability [40].

Before and immediately following PNE-VR, a series of measurements were performed to assess the efficacy of the PNEVR session. Measurements were a blend of psychometric measures, patient self-report measures, and physical measures (Figure 1):

Blood Pressure (Millimeters of Mercury – mmHg): Patient blood pressure was measured using an automatic blood pressure cuff.

Heart Rate (Beats per Minute – bpm): Patient heart rate was measured using an automatic blood pressure cuff.

Fear-Avoidance (Fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire - FABQ): The FABQ is a 16-item questionnaire that was designed to quantify fear and avoidance beliefs in individuals with LBP, but have since been adapted to musculoskeletal pain. The FABQ has two subscales: 1) a 4-item scale to measure fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity (FABQ-PA) and 2) a 7-item scale to measure fear-avoidance beliefs about work (FABQ-WS). Each item is scored from 0 to 6, with possible scores ranging between 0 and 24 and 0 and 42 for the physical activity and work subscales, respectively, with higher scores representing an increase in fearavoidance beliefs. The FABQ has demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability and validity in previous studies [45, 46]. Presence of avoidance behavior is associated with an increased risk of prolonged disability and work loss. It is proposed that FABQ-PA >14 and FABQ-WS > 34 are associated with a higher likelihood of not returning to work or activities of daily living [47]. The MCID for the FABQ has been reported as 13.0 [48].

Pain Catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophization Scale – PCS): The PCS is a self-report questionnaire that assesses inappropriate coping strategies and catastrophic thinking about pain and injury. The PCS has been used in previous musculoskeletal studies [49, 50] and demonstrated strong construct validity, reliability, and stability [51]. The PCS utilizes a 13-item, 5-point Likert scale with higher scores indicating elevated levels of catastrophizing. Previous studies using the PCS have shown a median score of 18 in healthy individuals, and a score over 30 is reported as a high level of pain catastrophization [51]. In patients with musculoskeletal pain, the PCS’s minimal detectable change (MDC) is reported to be 9.1 [52], and the MCID has not been established.

Active Range of Motion:

Low Back:

Active trunk flexion: Active trunk forward flexion, measured from the longest finger on the dominant hand to the floor in centimeters (cm) [53-55]. The MDC for active trunk forward flexion has been reported as 4.5 cm [56].

Straight leg raise (SLR): SLR was used as a neurodynamic measurement rather than a test of hamstring length. SLR was measured with an inclinometer placed on the tibial crest 5cm distal to the inferior border of the patella on the most affected leg [5355]. SLR for this study kept the ankle in neutral (90 degrees) with no added dorsiflexion or plantar flexion, per previous studies [5355]. MDC for SLR has been reported as a 5.7 degree difference [56].

Neck:

Neck active range of motion for flexion, extension, and left and right rotation was measured using an inclinometer as used in past studies on neck pain [57, 58]. Cervical spine range of motion measures with a goniometer have been shown to be reliable in all directions [59] and the MDC values for lateral bending have been reported as 2.89°, 6.78° for extension, and 3.81° for flexion [60].

Shoulder:

Active shoulder flexion of each patient’s affected arm was assessed with a goniometer with the patient seated. Skin marks were placed for the goniometric measurements to allow consistency of pre- and post-PNE-VR measurements. There is good reliability and validity of goniometric shoulder AROM measurements [6163]. The MDC for shoulder flexion has been reported as 8 degrees, and the calculation of the MCID is dependent on patient pathology [62, 64].

Knee:

Active knee flexion and extension range of motion was assessed with a standard goniometer with the patient in a supine position. To ensure consistency of pre- and post-treatment measurements, skin marks are placed for the goniometric measurements. There is good evidence for the reliability and validity of goniometric knee range of motion measurements [65]. The MDC for knee pain varies between 3-5 degrees, while the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is reported at 10 degrees [66, 67].

Patient self-reported experience following the PNE-VR was measured only post-intervention, using the global rate of change (GROC) scale. The GROC is a scale that measures self-perceived change in health status. The primary purpose is to qualify the extent to which a patient has improved or deteriorated over time. The GROC scale involves a single question for the patient to rate their change concerning a particular condition over a specified period. The patient then rates on a scale to score the magnitude of this change. The scale used goes from -7 (a very great deal worse) to 7 (A very great deal better). The MCID for the GROC for chronic musculoskeletal pain has been reported as a change of 2.0 [68].

Statistical Analysis

All statistics were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA) using the significance threshold of α<0.05. Descriptive statistics of frequencies, means and standard deviations were calculated for the entire sample population and each body region group. Patient characteristics of age, pain duration, and GROC scores were evaluated between each body region for differences utilizing a one-way ANOVA. In addition, a test for homogeneity of variance was performed on each analysis. Bonferroni correction was used during post-hoc analysis to look for individual differences between the groups. Paired sample t-test was done on individual range of motion, blood pressure, and heart rate changes for each body region before and after the intervention. Reporting of mean differences and standard deviation for each and Hedges’ g calculation for effect size analysis is reported. Interpretation of effect size for Hedges’ g was 0.15 for small effects, 0.40 for medium effects, and large effects at 0.75 [69]. The ordinal data of FABQ-PA, FABQ-WS, PCS, and NPRS were compared pre and post-intervention using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. The effect size was calculated through the formula r = z/√N₁+N₂. Reporting of magnitude utilized Cohen’s criteria [70] of .10 for small effects, .03 or greater for medium effects, and large effects with r greater than .50.

Results

Patients

Forty consecutive patients’ data were collected, with 10 patients collected for each body part region of the neck, shoulder, back, and knee. The average age was 53.3 (SD = 15.1) years for the whole group, with each body part region demographics listed in Table 1. There was a significant difference between the shoulder and back groups with age, F (3,36) = 3.90, p = .016. No differences between pain duration were found between groups, and the mean duration of the cohort (82.9 months), indicates a population of patients with persistent pain. Even though four different disability scales were used, the overall cohort exhibited moderate disability associated with their joint pain.

	All (n=40)	Neck (n=10)	Shoulder (n=10)	Back (n=10)	Knee (n=10)
Mean Age (years) (SD)	53.3 (15.1)	54.2 (13.4)	60.0 (8.5)	41.0 (15.3)	57.8 (15.9)
Mean Pain Duration (months) (SD)	82.9 (112.6)	64.7 (85.9)	82.1 (103.3)	56.8 (67.8)	128.2 (169.9)
Gender (female) (%)	25 (62.5)	6 (60)	8 (80)	6 (60)	5 (50)
Race (%)
African American	8 (20)	2 (20)	2 (20)	1 (10)	3 (30)
Hispanic	3 (7.5)	0 (0)	1 (10)	2 (20)	0 (0)
White	24 (60)	7 (70)	7 (70)	3 (30)	7 (70)
Asian	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Other	5 (12.5)	1 (10)	0 (0)	4 (40)	0 (0)
Mean NDI (SD)		21.9 (9.4)
Mean DASH (SD)			40.4 (16.5)
Mean ODI (SD)				12.9 (7.8)
Mean LEFS (SD)					36.0 (14.1)
NDI = Neck Disability Index, DASH = Disability Arm, Shoulder, Hand, ODI = Oswestry Disability Index, LEFS = Lower Extremity Functional Scale

Blood Pressure and Heart Rate

Heart rate and blood pressure measurements pre-and postintervention showed no significant differences for any body region groups.

Self-reported pain and psychometric measures

Figure 3: Reduction in FABQ-PA Score after PNE-VR Intervention

Physical Measures

Some significant differences were found when looking at ROM changes between some of the body regions (Table 2). Shoulder flexion changed 5.7 degrees (SD = 6.6) pre-and posttreatment, demonstrating a small effect size. Knee flexion and extension also had significant changes, 4.6 (SD = 3.6) and 4.7 (SD = 3.6) degrees of improvement, respectively, exceeding MDC. This demonstrated a small effect on knee flexion and a medium effect on knee extension. Patients with neck and back pain showed no significant changes in ROM scores after the intervention.

	Mean Difference (SD)	95% Confidence Interval	p-value	Effect Size (Hedges’ g)
Neck flexion	0.7 (7.1)	-4.4 to 5.8	0.762	0.06
Neck extension	4.7 (8.7)	-1.5 to 10.9	0.121	0.42
Neck left rotation	2.3 (7.0)	-2.7 to 7.3	0.329	0.14
Neck right rotation	1.6 (11.8)	-6.9 to 10.1	0.679	0.09
Shoulder flexion	5.7 (6.6)	1.0 to 10.4	0.023*	0.12
Trunk Flexion	-4.4 (7.7)	-9.9 to 1.1	0.101	-0.25
Straight leg raise	4.4 (10.3)	-3.0 to 11.8	0.210	0.17
Knee flexion	4.6 (3.6)	2.0 to 7.2	.003*	0.38
Knee extension	4.7 (3.6)	2.2 to 7.2	.002*	0.61
* Denotes significant difference

Table 2: Paired Sample t-Test Pre-Post Treatment ROM changes for Each Body Region Global Rate of Change

There were significant differences in GROC scores after treatment for the groups (Figure 4). The neck group’s mean GROC scores differed from shoulder and knee mean scores, F (3,36) = 4.37, p = .010. Individual GROC scores for shoulder and knee (3.0 and 3.4, respectively) were above the minimally clinically important change of 2.0 [68]. However, there was no change in the GROC score for patients with neck pain and minimal change (1.4 points) on the GROC score for patients with LBP.

Figure 4: Mean GROC Scores Following PNE-VR

Different Body Regions

Table 3 showcases the comparative and cumulative results of the various outcome measures per body region after PNE-VR. The most positively influenced factor by PNE-VR was fear of physical activity. At the same time, the shoulder joint yielded the most positive shifts of all the body regions, with the neck least influenced.

	Blood pressure	Heart rate	NPRS	FABQ-PA	FABQ-WS	PCS	ROM	GROC
Neck
Shoulder
Back
Knee
NPRS = Numeric Pain Rating Scale, FABQ-PA = Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire – Physical Activity, FABQ-WS = Fear Avoidance Belief Questionaire – Work Scale, PCS = Pain Catastrophizing Scale, ROM = Range of Motion, GROC = Global Rating of Change

Table 3: Comparative and Cumulative Results of PNE-VR for Musculoskeletal Pain in PT

Discussion

This initial study explored PNE-VR for different body regions in patients with persistent pain attending PT. The most significant positive shifts were seen in fear of physical activity. Patients with shoulder pain and disability received some of the greatest benefits from PNE-VR, followed by patients with LBP and knee pain.

Following PNE-VR, all patient groups, except for neck pain, had a significant shift in FABQ-PA. Fear-avoidance is a powerful driver of persistent pain, and in recent years many treatments in PT have focused on strategies to influence fear-avoidance positively [33, 48, 71]. Interestingly, current PNE research shows a reduction of fear-avoidance and pain catastrophization as the potential primary underlying mechanism behind the success with PNE [12, 13, 21, 22, 24]. A reduction in fear-avoidance allows patients to move more and benefit more from movement-based therapies such as exercise [71]. Reductions in pain catastrophizing have been tied to improved endogenous pain modulation [72]. This study showed that a brief PNE-VR session yields changes in FABQ-PA and PCS comparable to in-person PT-delivered PNE [22]. This finding is key since it demonstrates that a PNE-VR session may add additional benefit to a patient when added after in-person therapy. Additionally, the 12-minute session did not add a significant additional burden to patients from a time perspective. In addition, as seen in GROC scores, the patients’ global change rate was positive, especially in patients with shoulder and knee pain. Furthermore, the patient population in this cohort represented a patient sample with years of pain and moderate disability, which often pose significant clinical challenges for clinicians and is the ideal patient group that may benefit from this more robust, add-on, additional treatment [73].

PNE research originated with studies on persistent LBP and to-date, the vast number of clinical studies on PNE has focused on persistent LBP [22, 24]. In this study PNE-VR yielded a positive shift in the persistent LBP cohort shifting FABQ-PA, FABQ-WS, and PCS, concurring with current PNE evidence. Surprisingly, PNE-VR produced most of its benefits for shoulder pain. To date, only one PNE study has been published looking at preoperative PNE in patients preparing for shoulder surgery, which showed that PNE was able to positively influence fear-avoidance, active shoulder flexion, and pressure pain thresholds [74]. The results from this PNE-VR study concur with similar results, indicating that PNE may be a valuable tool in treating patients with shoulder pain and disability and should be further studied. Likewise, the PNE-VR session yielded positive shifts in the patients with knee pain, concurring with previous preoperative PNE studies for knee replacements [75, 76]. Of particular note is that PNE delivered a change in active range of motion in both peripheral joints, which may be of some potential clinical benefit.

Interestingly, PNE-VR had little benefit for patients attending PT with neck pain and disability. This finding is in contrast to a case study using PNE-VR on a patient with persistent neck pain that showed positive effects on pain ratings, PCS, and disability [32]. In a non-VR study, Meeus, et al. showed PNE to increase pain knowledge and alter PCS, which is in contrast to this study. Therefore, additional investigation should explore if PNE-VR has a role in persistent neck pain.

This study contains various limitations. First, by design as an exploratory case series, the lack of control subjects warrants cautious interpretation of the results. Future studies should test a sample of patients undergoing PT with or without the addition of PNE-VR, to truly study the impact of PNE-VR versus traditional therapy. This study also did not explore any follow-up or lasting results, limiting its findings to short-term with no long-term outcomes. Finally, the sample size of this study is small, adding to the limited interpretation of the results. The patient sample used in this study was a convenience sample of patients opting into the study. A patient selection bias may be present, with those opting into the study being more suitable for this intervention, thus showing improved outcomes.

Conclusion

This is the first study to explore PNE-VR for different body regions in patients with persistent pain attending PT. The most significant positive shifts were seen for fear of physical activity. Patients presenting with shoulder pain and disability received the greatest benefit from PNE-VR, followed by patients with LBP and then knee pain. Patients with neck pain demonstrated the least benefit from the PNE-VR treatment used in this study. Future studies should explore larger scale, multi-center clinical trials with comtrol groups what may benefit from VR. The ability to develop such programs plus the ever-expanding research and technology into VR may allow for scalable treatments that may benefit many seeking care from healthcare providers on a regional, national and even global scale.

Author Contributions: AL, DS, KZ and GS developed the research protocol. TC submitted IRB. TC and KZ completed the statistical analysis. Data collection was undertaken by DS, GS, DM, JS and LE. AL and KZ drafted the original manuscript. All authors helped with editing and preparing final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Southwest Baptist University, Bolivar MO.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

References

Druss, B.G., et al., The most expensive medical conditions in America. Health Aff (Millwood), 2002. 21(4): p. 105-11.
Cohen, A.J., et al., Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015. Lancet, 2017. 389(10082): p. 1907-1918.
Hoy, D., et al., A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis and rheumatism, 2012. 64(6): p. 2028-37.
Manchikanti, L., et al., Epidemiology of low back pain in adults. Neuromodulation, 2014. 17 Suppl 2: p. 3-10.
Nomura, S., et al., Population health and regional variations of disease burden in Japan, 1990-2015: a systematic subnational analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet, 2017. 390(10101): p. 1521-1538.
Dolot, J., et al., Factors Impacting Physical Therapy Utilization for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Retrospective Analysis of a Clinical Data Set. Phys Ther, 2020. 100(9): p. 1502-1515.
Zheng, P., et al., Stagnant Physical Therapy Referral Rates Alongside Rising Opioid Prescription Rates in Patients With Low Back Pain in the United States 1997-2010. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2017. 42(9): p. 670-674.
Jette, A.M. and A. Delitto, Physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal impairments. Physical therapy, 1997. 77(2): p. 145-54.
Jull, G., Biopsychosocial model of disease: 40 years on. Which way is the pendulum swinging? Br J Sports Med, 2017. 51(16): p. 1187-1188.
Beltran-Alacreu, H., et al., Manual Therapy, Therapeutic Patient Education, and Therapeutic Exercise, an Effective Multimodal Treatment of Nonspecific Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists, 2015.
Booth, J., et al., Exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain: A biopsychosocial approach. Musculoskeletal Care, 2017. 15(4): p. 413-421.
Nijs, J., et al., Central sensitisation in chronic pain conditions:latest discoveries and their potential for precision medicine. The Lancet Rheumatology, 2021. 3(5): p. e383-e392.
Louw, A., et al., Revisiting the Provision of Pain Neuroscience Education: An Adjunct Intervention for Patients but a Primary Focus of Clinician Education. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2021. 51(2): p. 57-59.
Hodges, P.W., J.H. van Dieen, and J. Cholewicki, Time to Reflect on the Role of Motor Control in Low Back Pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2019. 49(6): p. 367-369.
George, S.Z., et al., Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2021. 51(11): p. CPG1-CPG60.
Naugle, K.M., R.B. Fillingim, and J.L. Riley, 3rd, A meta-analytic review of the hypoalgesic effects of exercise. The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society, 2012. 13(12): p. 1139-50.
Wiffen, P.J., et al., Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017. 6: p. CD007938.
Sharon, H., et al., Mindfulness Meditation Modulates Pain Through Endogenous Opioids. Am J Med, 2016. 129(7): p. 7558.
Devan, H., et al., Evaluation of Self-Management Support Functions in Apps for People With Persistent Pain: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, 2019. 7(2): p. e13080.
Babu, A.S., et al., Management of patients with fibromyalgia using biofeedback: a randomized control trial. Indian J Med Sci, 2007. 61(8): p. 455-61.
Nijs, J., et al., Integrating Motivational Interviewing in Pain Neuroscience Education for People With Chronic Pain: A Practical Guide for Clinicians. Phys Ther, 2020. 100(5): p. 846859.
Louw , A., et al., The Efficacy of Therapeutic Neuroscience Education on Musculoskeletal Pain – A Systematic Review of the Literature. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2016. 32(5): p. 332-355.
Ehde, D.M., T.M. Dillworth, and J.A. Turner, Cognitive-behavioral therapy for individuals with chronic pain: efficacy, innovations, and directions for research. Am Psychol, 2014. 69(2): p. 153-66.
Romm, M.J., et al., A Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Pain Neuroscience Education, Using Dosage and Treatment Format as Moderator Variables. Pain Pract, 2021. 21(3): p. 366-380.
Louw, A., et al., The clinical application of teaching people about pain. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2016. 32(5): p. 385-95.
Louw, A., et al., Evaluation is treatment for low back pain. J Man Manip Ther, 2021. 29(1): p. 4-13.
Louw, A., et al., The clinical impact of pain neuroscience continuing education on physical therapy outcomes for patients with low back and neck pain. PLoS One, 2022. 17(4): p. e0267157.
Kvedar, J.C., et al., Digital medicine’s march on chronic disease. Nat Biotechnol, 2016. 34(3): p. 239-46.
Hoffman, H.G., et al., Virtual Reality Analgesia for Children With Large Severe Burn Wounds During Burn Wound Debridement. Front Virtual Real, 2020. 1.
Smuck, M., et al., Physical performance analysis: A new approach to assessing free-living physical activity in musculoskeletal pain and mobility-limited populations. PLoS One, 2017. 12(2): p.e0172804.
Heathcote, L.C., et al., Pain neuroscience education on YouTube. PeerJ, 2019. 7: p. e6603.
Louw , A., C. Louw, and T. Flynn, Case report: Pain Neuroscience Education using Virtual Reality. Pain and Rehabilitation, 2019. 46(Winter 2019): p. 4-7.
Louw, A., et al., Immediate effect of pain neuroscience education for recent onset low back pain: an exploratory single arm trial. J Man Manip Ther, 2019: p. 1-10.
Fairbank, J.C. and P.B. Pynsent, The Oswestry disability index. Spine, 2000. 25(22): p. 2940-2953.
Sheahan, P.J., E.J. Nelson-Wong, and S.L. Fischer, A review of culturally adapted versions of the Oswestry Disability Index: the adaptation process, construct validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Disabil Rehabil, 2015. 37(25): p. 2367-74.
Lutz, A.D., et al., Risk Adjustment of the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and Neck Disability Index to Benchmark Physical Therapist Performance: Analysis From an Outcomes Registry. Phys Ther, 2020. 100(4): p. 609-620.
Young, I.A., et al., Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patient-specific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists, 2010. 89(10): p. 831-9.
Binkley, J.M., et al., The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Physical therapy, 1999. 79(4): p. 371-83.
Negahban, H., et al., Reliability and validity of the Persian lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) in a heterogeneous sample of outpatients with lower limb musculoskeletal disorders. Disabil Rehabil, 2014. 36(1): p. 10-5.
Mintken, P.E., P. Glynn, and J.A. Cleland, Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery / American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ... [et al.], 2009. 18(6): p. 920-6.
Moseley, G.L., Joining forces - combining cognition-targeted motor control training with group or individual pain physiology education: a successful treatment for chronic low back pain. J Man Manip Therap, 2003. 11(2): p. 88-94.
Moseley, L., Combined physiotherapy and education is efficacious for chronic low back pain. Aust J Physiother, 2002. 48(4): p. 297302.
Moseley, G.L., Widespread brain activity during an abdominal task markedly reduced after pain physiology education: fMRI evaluation of a single patient with chronic low back pain. Aust J Physiother, 2005. 51(1): p. 49-52.
Salaffi, F., et al., Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain, 2004. 8(4): p. 283-91.
Inrig, T., et al., Validity and reliability of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) in workers with upper extremity injuries. J Occup Rehabil, 2012. 22(1): p. 59-70.
Mintken, P.E., et al., Psychometric properties of the FearAvoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in patients with shoulder pain. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2010. 91(7): p. 1128-36.
Fritz, J.M., S.Z. George, and A. Delitto, The role of fear-avoidance beliefs in acute low back pain: relationships with current and future disability and work status. Pain, 2001. 94(1): p. 7-15.
George, S.Z., J.M. Fritz, and D.W. McNeil, Fear-avoidance beliefs as measured by the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire: change in fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire is predictive of change in self-report of disability and pain intensity for patients with acute low back pain. Clin J Pain, 2006. 22(2): p. 197-203.
Moseley, G.L., M.K. Nicholas, and P.W. Hodges, A randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain, 2004. 20(5): p. 324-30.
Moseley, G.L., Evidence for a direct relationship between cognitive and physical change during an education intervention in people with chronic low back pain. European journal of pain, 2004. 8(1): p. 39-45.
Sullivan, M.J.L., S.R. Bishop, and J. Pivik, The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 1995. 7(4): p. 524-532.
George, S.Z., C. Valencia, and J.M. Beneciuk, A psychometric investigation of fear-avoidance model measures in patients with chronic low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2010. 40(4): p. 197-205.
Zimney, K., A. Louw, and E.J. Puentedura, Use of Therapeutic Neuroscience Education to address psychosocial factors associated with acute low back pain: a case report. Physiotherapy theory and practice, 2014. 30(3): p. 202-9.
Moseley, G.L., P.W. Hodges, and M.K. Nicholas, A randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain. Clinical Journal of Pain, 2004. 20: p. 324-330.
Moseley, G.L., Evidence for a direct relationship between cognitive and physical change during an education intervention in people with chronic low back pain. European Journal of Pain, 2004. 8: p. 39-45.
Ekedahl, H., B. Jonsson, and R.B. Frobell, Fingertip-to-floor test and straight leg raising test: validity, responsiveness, and predictive value in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2012. 93(12): p. 2210-5.
Puentedura, E.J., et al., Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from thrust joint manipulation to the cervical spine. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 2012. 42(7): p. 577-92.
Cleland, J.A., et al., Development of a clinical prediction rule for guiding treatment of a subgroup of patients with neck pain: use of thoracic spine manipulation, exercise, and patient education. Phys Ther, 2007. 87(1): p. 9-23.
Audette, I., et al., Validity and between-day reliability of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2010. 40(5): p. 318-23.
Feng, M., et al., Measurements of cervical range of motion using an optical motion capture system: Repeatability and validity. Exp Ther Med, 2019. 18(6): p. 4193-4202.
Kolber, M.J. and W.J. Hanney, The reliability and concurrent validity of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer and goniometer: a technical report. International journal of sports physical therapy, 2012. 7(3): p. 306-13.
Kolber, M.J., et al., The reliability and concurrent validity of scapular plane shoulder elevation measurements using a digital inclinometer and goniometer. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2012. 28(2): p. 161-8.
Salamh, P.A. and M.J. Kolber, The reliability, minimal detectable change and construct validity of a clinical measurement for quantifying posterior shoulder tightness in the post-operative population. International journal of sports physical therapy, 2012. 7(6): p. 565-75.
Kolber, M.J., et al., The reliability and minimal detectable change of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2011. 27(2): p. 176-84.
Beaupre, L.A., et al., The effect of a preoperative exercise and education program on functional recovery, health related quality of life, and health service utilization following primary total knee arthroplasty. J Rheumatol, 2004. 31(6): p. 1166-73.
Lenssen, A.F., et al., Reproducibility of goniometric measurement of the knee in the in-hospital phase following total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2007. 8: p. 83.
Jakobsen, T.L., et al., Reliability of knee joint range of motion and circumference measurements after total knee arthroplasty: does tester experience matter? Physiother Res Int, 2010. 15(3): p. 126-34.
Kamper, S.J., C.G. Maher, and G. Mackay, Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 2009. 17(3): p. 163-170.
Brydges, C.R., Effect Size Guidelines, Sample Size Calculations, and Statistical Power in Gerontology. Innovation in aging, 2019. 3(4): p. igz036-igz036.
Cohen, J., A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 1992. 112(1): p. 155.
Coronado, R.A., et al., Psychologically informed physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain: current approaches, implications, and future directions from recent randomized trials. Pain Rep, 2020. 5(5): p. e847.
Benedetti, F., et al., Pain as a reward: changing the meaning of pain from negative to positive co-activates opioid and cannabinoid systems. Pain, 2013. 154(3): p. 361-7.
Moseley, G.L., Unraveling the barriers to reconceptualization of the problem in chronic pain: the actual and perceived ability of patients and health professionals to understand the neurophysiology. The Journal of Pain, 2003. 4(4): p. 184-189.
Louw, A., et al., Preoperative Pain Neuroscience Education for Shoulder Surgery. South African Journal of Physiotherapy, 2020(April 2020 - accepted for publication).
Louw, A., et al., Immediate preoperative outcomes of pain neuroscience education for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A case series. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2018: p. 1-11.
Louw, A., et al., A controlled clinical trial of preoperative pain neuroscience education for patients about to undergo total knee arthroplasty. Clin Rehabil, 2019: p. 269215519857782.