Next Article in Journal
Understanding Alignment to the Mediterranean-Style and DASH Eating Patterns and Assessing Associations with Cardiometabolic Clinical Outcomes Among Hispanic/Latine Adults in the United States: An NHANES Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Exercises Performed with External Focus Instructions on Transversus Abdominis Thickness in Postpartum Women with Diastasis Recti
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Professionals’ Perceptions of the Potential of Digital Twins in Homecare—A Focus Group Study in Sweden
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical Implications of Kinesiotaping for Forearm Muscle Function: Acute Effects on Grip Strength, Pain Sensitivity, and Muscle Oxygenation in Healthy Active Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/healthcare14030290
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Therapeutic Patient Education in Adults with Chronic Lower Limb Musculoskeletal Pain: A Scoping Review

by
Carla Vanti
1,*,
Michael Bianchini
2,
Alessio Mantineo
3,
Francesco Ballardin
1 and
Paolo Pillastrini
1,4
1
Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), University of Bologna, via Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy
2
Sol et Salus Hospital, 47922 Rimini, Italy
3
Villa Bellombra Hospital, 40132 Bologna, Italy
4
Unit of Occupational Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, via Pelagio Palagi 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2026, 14(3), 290; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14030290
Submission received: 21 December 2025 / Revised: 7 January 2026 / Accepted: 19 January 2026 / Published: 23 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dysfunctions or Approaches of the Musculoskeletal System)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Highlights

What are the main findings?
  • Clinical research on Therapeutic Patient Education (TPE) in patients with chronic lower limb musculoskeletal pain has focused primarily on hip and knee osteoarthritis.
  • TPE varies significantly across studies in content, delivery mode, providers, and duration.
What are the implications of the main findings?
  • Clinical research lacks information on TPE in chronic ankle musculoskeletal conditions and in young adults.
  • Future studies should report providers’ training and TPE amount.

Abstract

Background: Conservative treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain includes exercise, manual therapy, medications, physical agents/modalities, and Therapeutic Patient Education (TPE). Research on TPE has predominantly focused on spinal pain, so we do not know the extent and scope of clinical research in other areas, particularly lower extremities. This review aimed to map current research on this topic. Methods: We searched PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library up to 1 April 2024. We included RCTs on adults with chronic lower limb musculoskeletal pain, written in English, French, Spanish, or Italian. Results: Fifty-two records concerning knee osteoarthritis (n.33), hip and knee osteoarthritis (n.8), hip osteoarthritis (n.3), chronic knee pain (n.3), patellofemoral pain (n.3), and gluteal tendinopathy (n.2) were included. TPE was delivered through self-management, disease-specific information, pain education, and the management of physical activity, load, diet, stress, and sleep. Interventions were both individual- and group-based; delivery methods included in-person intervention, telephone/video calls, and web tools/apps. TPE combined with exercise seemed to be more effective than exercise alone, information/little education, or usual care. The effects of TPE as a stand-alone intervention appeared uncertain. Conclusions: There is considerable variability in TPE in terms of teaching topics, providers, administration methods, and dosage of interventions. Future studies should investigate the effects of TPE in young adult populations and in ankle conditions. They should also investigate the effects of TPE on pain intensity versus pain interference with activities, by deepening TPE effects on disability and quality of life.

1. Introduction

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as pain in the musculoskeletal system that persists or recurs for longer than three months; according to the World Health Organization (WHO), 20–33% of the world’s population has some form of chronic musculoskeletal pain, translating to 1.75 billion people globally [1]. This condition causes great direct and indirect social costs [2].
Treating chronic pain involves multifactorial interventions targeting physical, psychological, emotional, lifestyle, and social aspects. Among interventions delivered to chronic pain patients, the physical approach still tends to prevail over the multidisciplinary approach, and little attention is paid to Therapeutic Patient Education (TPE) [3].
According to the WHO’s definition, TPE includes a multifaceted intervention tailored to address patients’ conditions and characteristics, with different delivery methods and educational goals [4]. Importantly, TPE differs from generic patient education or information provision, as it is grounded in a structured, patient-centered, and biopsychosocial framework aimed at empowering patients in self-management and decision-making. In fact, TPE can vary in its teaching strategy (e.g., lectures, discussions, information technology, written materials, audiotapes, videotapes, oral instruction, and demonstrations) and delivery method (individual or group instruction). It may also include teaching patients about their conditions, treatment options, medication management, diet and exercise recommendations, behavioral changes, and coping strategies for better health management [5].
With the paradigm change from a biomedical to a biopsychosocial approach in the last decades of the 1900s, the focus shifted from pathology to patients. In this context, TPE started to play a crucial role in the field of physiotherapy treatments, both for patients (to empower them) and for physiotherapists (to broaden their skills beyond providing passive or active procedures). Then, TPE began to be a recommended intervention for different chronic conditions, i.e., musculoskeletal chronic pain [6,7], chronic low back pain (LBP) [8,9], and tendinopathies [10].
In the last three decades, within the rehabilitative musculoskeletal field, two new TPE approaches emerged; these are Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) and Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy (PIPT).
PNE is an approach to chronic pain management that aims to educate individuals about the complex nature of pain [11], as well as the ways in which the nervous system is involved in the experience of pain [12]. This educational strategy aims to help individuals understand the neurobiological and neurophysiological processes of pain [12,13], including emotions, beliefs, and past experiences. Patients can better understand pain, thereby changing the negative beliefs they have about it and their incorrect perceptions of it [13,14]. Current research suggests PNE in chronic musculoskeletal pain could increase patient knowledge about pain, produce cognitive changes, and have positive effects on pain, disability, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, hypervigilance, anxiety, attitudes, and beliefs [6,15,16].
PIPT is a multimodal rehabilitation approach that integrates psychological principles and usual physiotherapy interventions, with the aim of addressing the psychological and cognitive aspects that can influence patient behavior and outcomes [17]. The main interventions include different strategies, such as graded exposure, graded activity, cognitive–behavioral therapy [17,18], acceptance and commitment-based physical therapy [19,20], mindfulness, and relaxation techniques [21]. PIPT interventions should be tailored to each patient and could be delivered, depending on the patients’ psychosocial factors and needs, by physical therapists and/or psychologists [22].
In the musculoskeletal field, PNE demonstrated a moderate effect on reducing pain (especially when combined with exercise or other interventions), disability, and kinesiophobia [6]. PIPT interventions when combined with physical therapy showed small effects on reducing pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and pain catastrophizing [23] and improved physical function [24].
A recent umbrella review on PNE in musculoskeletal chronic conditions [6] showed that LBP, and in general spinal pain, is the most studied. Indeed, of the sixteen reviews included, only three considered different conditions (e.g., fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis). Similar considerations could be made on PIPT [17,23,24].
Current research often discusses the effects of TPE on chronic musculoskeletal pain regardless of the specific condition, while most of the evidence comes from populations with spinal disorders. Furthermore, the young adult population is underrepresented in existing studies, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. While it is reasonable to consider the mechanisms underlying chronic spinal pain similar to those of lower limb pathologies, generalizing the effects of TPE to different clinical conditions is questionable.
Therefore, we decided to carry out a scoping review [25] to map the clinical research concerning TPE in chronic painful conditions of the lower extremities. Given the heterogeneity of interventions labeled as TPE [26], this review aims to describe and categorize educational components rather than evaluate a single, homogeneous TPE construct.
The objectives of this study do not address the clinical effectiveness of different TPE interventions, which should be the subject of a systematic review.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis—Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) [27]. The PRISMA-ScR checklist is reported in Table S1. The protocol of this scoping review is registered in the Open Science Framework website: https://osf.io/j97zy/overview (accessed on 28 October 2025).

2.1. Deviations from the Protocol

Unlike what has previously been reported in the protocol, no additional searches on Google Scholar or Web of Science were conducted because of limited resources.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The PCC [Population, Concept, and Context] of this review is reported in Table 1.
Clinical research studies were included in this review according to the following criteria:
  • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) written in English, Italian, French, or Spanish;
  • Involving adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with chronic musculoskeletal pain in lower extremities;
  • Comparing TPE, alone or combined with other interventions, with other interventions or no treatment;
  • Considering at least one of the main clinical outcomes, i.e., pain intensity, pain interference with activities, function, disability, and quality of life.
  • Studies were excluded in cases of the following:
  • Other study designs (e.g., non-controlled clinical trials, observational studies, etc.);
  • Study population including patients with systemic disease or diffuse pain;
  • Study population including patients with chronic spinal or upper limb musculoskeletal pain;
  • Treatment including surgery interventions;
  • Educational interventions limited to passive information provision (e.g., prerecorded audio/video material or pamphlet delivery) without any face-to-face or interactive educational component.

2.3. Information Sources

PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane databases were searched up to 1 April 2024, without any time restrictions.
Additionally, reference lists of included studies and other relevant papers retrieved with the search strategy were hand-searched to identify further studies. Given the aim of this review, which was to map clinical research in the published literature, no search of gray or unpublished research was conducted.

2.4. Search Strategy

The detailed search strategy for each database is reported in Table S2.

2.5. Selection of Sources of Evidence

Records retrieved from the search were uploaded to Zotero 6.0.36 software for automatic deduplication. Eligibility of titles and abstracts was independently evaluated by two reviewers (MB and AM) using the selection form by Rayyan software. If at least one author considered an article eligible, full-text and additional materials were retrieved. Eligibility of full texts was independently evaluated by two reviewers (MB and AM), and disagreements were solved by the intervention of a third reviewer (FB).

2.6. Data Charting Process

Data were collected by a single reviewer using a specific data charting form. Then, a second reviewer checked the extracted data.

2.7. Data Items

The data extraction included details identifying each publication (author and year of publication), country, setting, sample size, participants’ characteristics (age, sex, and condition), interventions (according to the TIDieR checklist [28]), follow-up times, and outcome measures.

2.8. Data Management and Validation

Disagreements in charting data were solved by the intervention of a third reviewer (FB).

2.9. Outcomes and Prioritization

Given the aim of this review, we considered pain, function, disability, and quality of life as main outcomes.

2.10. Risk of Bias (ROB)

A ROB assessment was conducted to contextualize the methodological quality and internal validity of the mapped evidence, without using it to exclude studies or rank their results, nor to infer effectiveness. The ROB assessment was performed by the authors group using the revised Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, which is an appraisal tool to evaluate methodological quality and risk of bias in a wide range of study types [29]. Scores (n. yes/n. total) ≤ 49% were considered to be a high risk of bias, scores between 50% and 69% were considered to be a medium risk of bias, and scores ≥ 70% were considered to be a low risk of bias [30]. Any disagreements between reviewers were resolved with a third reviewer (FB).

2.11. Data Synthesis

According to the wide range of populations and educational interventions searched, we hypothesized great heterogeneity among the studies. A narrative summary was provided with information presented in the text, tables, and graphs to summarize the characteristics of the included studies (authors, year of publication, country of origin, population and sample size, type of intervention and comparators, and outcomes) and key findings related to the scoping review questions.

2.12. Meta-Bias

Since no meta-analysis or quantitative synthesis was performed, no meta-bias assessments were planned.

2.13. Confidence in Cumulative Evidence

Evidence was not quantitatively synthesized.
No generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) was used in this paper.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search and Selection

The flow chart (Figure 1) according to the PRISMA Flow Diagram tool [31] graphically represents the search and screening process.
The search retrieved 499 records. After automatic deduplication, 408 records remained, and titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility according to inclusion criteria. After the title and abstract screening process, 108 records were considered potentially eligible; then, full texts and Supplementary Materials were retrieved and screened for eligibility. After the screening process, 47 RCTs corresponding to 52 records were included [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83]. No additional RCT was included from the reference lists. The excluded studies and the reasons for exclusion are reported in Table S3.

3.2. Characteristics of the Included Studies

General characteristics (first author, year of publication, country, and population) of the included studies are presented in Table 2.
The included studies were conducted in the USA (nine), Australia (nine, including one follow-up study), Brazil (six, including two follow-up studies), Iran (six), Denmark (five, including two follow-up studies), Canada (two), Hong Kong (two), Japan (two), Malaysia (two), UK (two), China (one), Israel (one), Netherlands (one), Norway (one), Portugal (one), South Africa (one), and Spain (one). They were published between 1997 and 2023 (median = 2017), with most published after 2010. A synthesis of the geographic distribution of the included studies is shown in Figure 2.

3.3. Brief Synthesis of Results

3.3.1. Populations

Sample sizes ranged between 24 and 523 individuals (median = 113). Most studies calculated sample size based on pain or function outcomes, often resulting in small sample sizes.
The majority of the included studies involved older adult populations, with mean ages often exceeding 60 years, and reported a higher proportion of female participants. Only one study [51] investigated a young female population (mean age = 28 years) affected by patello-femoral pain.
The included studies investigated the effects of TPE interventions in different populations—hip and knee osteoarthritis (n.8), hip osteoarthritis alone (n.3), knee osteoarthritis alone (n.33, including 4 follow-up studies), chronic knee pain (n.3), patello-femoral pain (n.3), and gluteal tendinopathy (n.2, including 1 follow-up study). The pain conditions investigated in the included studies are graphically represented in Figure 3.
Only eight studies [41,46,51,53,56,62,63,77] focused on conditions other than osteoarthritis, and all but one [46] investigated TPE combined with exercise. Notably, no study addressed chronic foot or ankle pain, including conditions such as chronic ankle instability or Achilles tendinopathy.

3.3.2. Interventions

In most studies, the educational intervention was delivered on the experimental group. Two of the included studies investigated the effect of TPE intervention both alone and in addition to the control intervention [32,33]; twenty studies investigated TPE intervention alone, and thirty investigated it in addition to other interventions (exercise, manual therapy, general physiotherapy, or medications). Educational interventions showed substantial heterogeneity in educational topics, providers, delivery modes, number of sessions, and intervention duration (Table S4).
  • Topics—The results of this review show the great variability of education topics, e.g., specific pathology education, self-management education, physical activity education, load management, pain science education, diet education, stress management, and sleep education. Most interventions included multiple topics; however, stress management and sleep education are included in only two [51,58] and three [54,57,72] studies, respectively.
  • Provider—Different providers delivered TPE intervention—in most cases, physiotherapists alone (19 studies) or with other professionals (10 studies), followed by multi-professional teams (7 studies) or other health professionals such as health educators (4 studies), clinical psychologists (2 studies), a Chinese medicine practitioner (1 study), and “researchers” not further specified (2 studies). In seven studies, the professional qualification of the providers was not specified. Fewer than half of the included studies reported that providers had specific training; others reported only the professional role of who provided the intervention and, in some cases, his/her years of expertise.
  • Delivery mode—Delivery modes were diverse. Face-to-face intervention was the most used (44 studies), followed by phone/Internet-based calls (4 studies) and app- or web-based intervention (4 studies). They were provided on a group basis (26 studies), on an individual basis (20 studies), or on both group and individual bases (6 studies) sessions. One study [34] adopted multi-step intervention including three different steps: web education, coaching phone calls, and physiotherapy. Each participant proceeded to the next step every three months only if he/she had not yet reached the goal. This multi-step intervention tried to balance standardized web-delivered and individualized face-to-face interventions. None of the included studies used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to prepare and/or deliver educational programs.
  • Sessions—The number of sessions delivered for TPE considerably varied, from one to 24; also, the time delivered for TPE was significantly different, from 30 min to 12 h. Some studies indicated the number of sessions without specifying their duration; others did not provide information on this topic.

3.3.3. Outcome Measures

Pain was the most frequently reported outcome (45 studies, 83.69%), followed by function (26 studies, 50.00%), quality of life (13 studies, 25.00%), and disability (8 studies, 15.38%). A summary of outcome measures is presented in Table 3.
Only four RCTs [47,71,81,82] calculated sample size considering the quality of life as the main outcome.

3.3.4. Risk of Bias

In line with the exploratory aim of this scoping review, the ROB findings are presented descriptively. Overall, the included RCTs showed moderate-to-high methodological quality. Specifically, only eight studies resulted in a high ROB, while the remaining studies were assessed as having a low (21 studies) or moderate (23 studies) ROB.
Blinding of participants and treatment providers was frequently absent or unclear; however, this should not be interpreted as a methodological shortcoming, as it is largely inherent to the nature of exercise- and education-based interventions, where blinding is often not feasible in practice. Outcome assessment was usually conducted in a standardized and reliable manner, although reliance on patient-reported outcome measures and limited reporting on assessor blinding introduced potential detection bias in several studies. Attrition was frequently reported, but inadequate analysis of dropouts and incomplete follow-up explanations remained common limitations. Statistical analyses were mostly appropriate for primary outcomes; however, pilot and feasibility studies often lacked sufficient power or comprehensive reporting for secondary outcomes.
A summary of ROB assessment is presented in Table 3, and a comprehensive ROB assessment for each study is reported in Table S5.

3.3.5. Effectiveness of TPE Interventions

The results of the included studies for each outcome and each comparison are summarized in Table 4.
  • Pain
Regarding pain reduction, when delivered as a stand-alone intervention, TPE generally demonstrated lower effectiveness compared to exercise [35,36,37]. When compared to information or minimal education, its effects ranged from similar [33,38,39,40,41,42,43] to superior [44,45,46]. TPE showed similar [42] to greater effects [44,47] compared to usual care and a similar effect compared to no intervention [48,49] or traditional Chinese medicine [50] at short-term follow-up.
When combined with exercise, TPE was associated with greater pain reduction compared to exercise alone [51,52], information/little education [53,54,55,56], usual care [57,58,59,60], heat therapy [61], and no intervention [62,63]. TPE combined with exercise also showed greater pain reduction compared to corticosteroid injection at short-term follow-up, whereas no differences were observed at long-term follow-up [62,63]. However, other studies did not find any statistically significant differences in pain reduction when comparing TPE plus exercise versus exercise alone [64], information/little education [41,65,66], usual care [67], inert injections [68,69], and no intervention [70].
Other studies reported greater pain reduction for TPE combined with different interventions versus medical care only [71,72] and delivery of information materials [33], whereas no differences were observed when comparing TPE combined with different interventions versus inert ultrasound [73] and physical therapy [74].
In summary, TPE appeared to be associated with favorable pain-related outcomes when combined with other interventions, particularly exercise. In contrast, findings for TPE delivered as a stand-alone intervention were inconsistent, and TPE alone appeared less effective when compared with exercise.
Detailed results for pain outcome are reported in Table S6.
  • Function
Regarding function improvement, TPE as a stand-alone intervention mainly showed similar outcomes when compared to information/little education [38,39,40,41,43] and inferior outcomes compared to exercise [36]. However, two studies reported better outcomes for TPE alone compared to information/little education [46] and usual care [47].
TPE plus exercise mainly showed greater function improvement compared to exercise alone [51,52], information/little education [53,54,55,56], usual care [59,67], and heat therapy [61]. Nevertheless, other studies did not find statistically significant differences in function improvement when comparing TPE plus exercise versus exercise alone [64] and information/little education [41,66].
Two studies comparing TPE combined with different interventions versus medical care alone reported higher function improvement in the TPE group [71,72]. Other studies found no differences in function outcomes when comparing TPE plus different interventions versus inert ultrasound [73] and physical therapy [74].
Overall, TPE showed similar superior effects on function when combined with other interventions, particularly exercise; contradictory results emerged for TPE alone when compared to other interventions or usual care.
Detailed results for function outcome are reported in Table S7.
  • Disability
Only eight studies reported disability outcomes [34,37,61,74,75,76,77,78,79]. TPE as a stand-alone intervention seemed to be less [37,76] to similarly [78] effective in reducing disability than exercise-based interventions, and when combined with exercise it showed greater effects than information/little education [34] and no additional effect when compared to exercise alone [77,79]. Education plus exercise appeared to be more effective than usual care [75] and heat therapy [61] in reducing disability.
Detailed results for disability outcome are reported in Table S8.
  • Quality of life
As a stand-alone intervention, TPE seemed to have similar effects on improving quality of life compared to exercise [80], information/little education [39,40,46,81], and no intervention [49]. Furthermore, TPE alone appeared more effective than usual care in improving quality of life [47,82].
TPE combined with exercise showed similar effects on quality of life when compared to information/little education [66] and no intervention [70,83], while it showed little improvement in quality of life when compared to usual care [59], medical care [71], and corticosteroid injections [63].
Detailed results for the quality of life outcome are reported in Table S9.

4. Discussion

Clinical research on TPE in lower extremity conditions is mostly diffused in America and Australia, since fewer studies are conducted in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Female and elderly patients mainly comprise the included populations. This could be explained by the prevalence of lower limb chronic musculoskeletal conditions that is higher in female gender, increases with age, and is frequently associated with hip and knee osteoarthritis [84,85,86]. However, ankle joints are also affected by chronic pain, even if this clinical condition seems underestimated [87].
This underestimation is confirmed by our review, in which most of the included studies were conducted on knee and hip osteoarthritis populations, and only eight of them focused on TPE effects in other lower limb conditions (chronic knee pain, patello-femoral pain, and gluteal tendinopathy). Notably, no RCT specifically investigated TPE interventions in chronic foot or ankle conditions, such as chronic ankle instability or Achilles tendinopathy, highlighting an important gap in the literature.
Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was moderate to high. In accordance with the exploratory purpose of this review, the ROB assessment was performed to describe the quality of research in this area. Therefore, ROB results should be interpreted descriptively, not to draw conclusions about the reliability of the results.
A key finding of this review is the marked heterogeneity of TPE interventions. Even respecting the inclusion criteria adopted for this study, we notice that not all interventions labeled as TPE fully reflected the WHO’s conceptual framework. Given the limited reporting in some studies and the lack of objective criteria to determine full adherence, a conservative approach was adopted, and these interventions were retained. Educational content, delivery mode, providers, session number, and intervention duration varied widely, and TPE was delivered either alone or combined with other conservative treatments. This heterogeneity limits comparability across studies, precludes quantitative synthesis, and hinders the identification of consistent models or best practices.

4.1. Topic

Chronic pain is sustained by different factors including stress [88], poor sleep quality [89], poor diet [90], physical inactivity, and psychological and social factors. Given this complexity, effective TPE should begin with an individual assessment of factors contributing to each patient’s pain experience. Rather than prioritizing a single educational topic, tailored multimodal lifestyle interventions may better address individual needs [91]. These may include explanations of nociplastic [92] and phenotyping pain [93], clinical reasoning [94], integration of cognitive–behavioral strategies and pain education [95], the role of sleep [96], stress [97], physical activity and exercise [98], and nutrition [99]. Despite the multidimensional nature of chronic pain, stress management and sleep education were addressed in only a small minority of the included studies. Future research should therefore investigate the effectiveness of tailored, needs-based educational approaches and more systematically evaluate underrepresented domains such as stress and sleep, which may play a crucial role in patient outcomes.

4.2. Provider

According to the results of this review, different providers with different expertise were involved in TPE. The WHO’s 2023 TPE Guide [4] defines a “provider” as a healthcare professional (e.g., physiotherapist, occupational therapist, physician, nurse, psychologist, etc.) with skills to relate to each patient through patient-centered care and meaningful involvement of people with lived experience. Patient involvement in shared decision-making (clinical concept), self-assessment and self-efficacy, autonomy and empowerment (psychological concepts), and activation (behavioral concept) are the main goals of providers in the TPE field.
Providers should have specific knowledge and competencies in the fields of communication, clinical reasoning, assessing and treating biological, physical, psychological, and social factors, and the individualization and tailoring of intervention based on patient feedback [100]. However, fewer than half of the included studies reported whether providers had received specific training in therapeutic education. This lack of reporting limits the interpretability and reproducibility of TPE interventions.
As therapeutic education has evolved from a tissue- and disease-based approach toward a patient-centered approach, future studies should clearly describe not only the professional background of providers but also their specific training in TPE, as this may be a key determinant of intervention effectiveness.

4.3. Delivery Mode

Another important factor to take into consideration is the delivery mode of the TPE. As far as cost-effectiveness is concerned, one-to-one, face-to-face interventions provided by trained personnel can be more patient-specific but also more expensive than online group-based interventions [101]. Internet-based materials or apps are less expensive but may limit patients’ accessibility to these resources. Group sessions may foster peer support, whereas individual sessions allow for higher personalization at the cost of reduced social interaction. Some ongoing studies are investigating whether individual or group delivery methods influence clinical outcomes [102].
With the aim of individualizing TPE while saving clinicians’ time, recent approaches propose the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It has been highlighted that large language models, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, may optimize the readability of patient information materials without compromising accuracy [103]. AI systems could potentially adapt educational content to individual literacy levels, answer patient-specific questions, and support the identification of relevant lifestyle factors [104]. The use of AI in TPE is in its infancy, and there are still some barriers and limitations in its use, such as the need to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information provided and the need to guarantee empathetic communication [104].

4.4. Dosage

According to the current literature, it is not possible to identify a minimal session number, length, or frequency of TPE that could lead to an improvement for each outcome; therefore, it is very difficult to suggest a standardized dose [105]. For PNE interventions, a recent systematic review [106] reported the minimal dose for statistical effectiveness, in addition to exercise, as being between 150 and 200 total minutes of education, while for achieving a clinically important difference for pain, the minimal dose is higher (about 500 min). These preliminary results should be carefully considered, since that review included low to very low-quality studies. Similarly to education topics, the dose could be tailored to patients’ needs; more frequent sessions could be more effective (and more expensive) [107] but at the same time could reduce active patient engagement in the treatment. Future studies should clearly report the session number, duration, and total educational exposure to improve reproducibility and comparability.

4.5. Outcomes

Although pain is linked to various lifestyle factors, most studies focused primarily on pain and function, whereas quality of life and disability were less frequently assessed.
Overall, TPE appeared more effective when combined with exercise, particularly for pain and functional outcomes, compared to exercise alone, information-based interventions, or usual care. In contrast, results for TPE delivered as a stand-alone intervention were inconsistent and generally inferior to exercise-based approaches. These findings are consistent with previous reviews on LBP populations [7,8,108]. However, unlike some evidence suggesting benefits of education alone in LBP, the present review indicates that TPE may be insufficient as a single intervention for lower extremity conditions. This discrepancy may reflect differences in pain beliefs and psychosocial profiles across conditions; LBP is often associated with clinically relevant unhelpful beliefs [109], so education alone could have a higher effect in LBP than in other conditions.
The greater effects observed when TPE is combined with exercise may be related to improvements in pain interference rather than in pain intensity [58], suggesting that TPE may facilitate better coping, acceptance, and participation in daily activities. This is confirmed by other studies, which found a higher effect on disability than on pain reduction [7]. Further studies are needed to deeply understand if and how much TPE can influence quality of life and disability.

4.6. Limitations

This scoping review focused exclusively on RCTs, excluding observational and non-controlled studies. Additionally, no search of gray literature or protocol databases was conducted due to the mentioned deviations from the registered protocol. Therefore, results of this scoping review refer only to interventional trials and should not be generalized to the entire body of literature on this topic.
Moreover, the decision to exclude studies other than in English, Italian, French, or Spanish languages could have led to a literature bias, since the entire layer of works in other European or Asian languages was excluded from this review. However, only four studies were excluded due to language.
Although most studies showed moderate-to-high methodological quality, a substantial number were rated as having moderate or high ROB; therefore, their results should be interpreted with caution. The substantial heterogeneity of TPE interventions in terms of topics, dosage, and providers, as well as combined and comparator interventions prevented us from making definitive conclusions on best practices.

5. Conclusions

Although there is a wealth of literature on TPE in the treatment of chronic spinal pain, less is known about other chronic musculoskeletal conditions. This review highlights a lack of clinical studies regarding TPE on some frequent lower limb musculoskeletal conditions, such as chronic ankle instability or chronic tendinopathy (e.g., Achilles’ tendinopathy). Furthermore, TPE in younger adult populations is poorly investigated, and some contents of the TPE are underestimated, specifically stress management and sleep education.
TPE seems to be effective when combined with exercise, while its effects as a stand-alone intervention appear uncertain; more specifically, its effectiveness as a single treatment emerges as lower than that of therapeutic exercise. However, the available evidence suggests that TPE may exert more consistent effects on functional outcomes, disability, and patients’ ability to cope with pain, rather than on pain intensity alone, particularly when delivered alongside exercise.
Further high-quality research should investigate the effectiveness of TPE as a self-treatment method, also considering psychological and social factors. Future studies should also clarify not only the qualification but also the specific training of the providers, report the number of sessions and/or the total duration of the educational intervention, and better investigate quality of life and disability as outcome measures. Moreover, future studies should explicitly differentiate between pain intensity and pain interference with activities to better capture the potential clinical value of TPE beyond pain reduction alone. Finally, future research should investigate the integration of AI into interventions to understand whether AI helps patients improve their outcomes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare14030290/s1, Table S1: PRISMA-ScR checklist; Table S2: Search strings; Table S3: Excluded records; Table S4: Synthesis of TPE interventions; Table S5: Risk of Bias assessment according to the revised JBI critical appraisal tool for RCTs; Table S6; Results on included studies on pain; Table S7: Results of included studies on function; Table S8: Results of included studies on disability; Table S9: Results of included studies on quality of life.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B., A.M. and F.B.; methodology, F.B. and C.V.; software, M.B. and A.M.; validation, F.B. and C.V.; formal analysis, F.B., C.V. and P.P.; investigation, M.B. and A.M.; data curation, M.B., A.M. and F.B.; writing—original draft preparation, C.V., M.B., A.M. and F.B.; writing—review and editing, C.V. and P.P.; supervision, P.P.; project administration, F.B. and C.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The results presented in this study summarize all the data that were collected.

Acknowledgments

We thank Andrea Turolla for his valuable suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial Intelligence
GenAIGenerative Artificial Intelligence
JBIJohanna Briggs Institute
LBPLow Back Pain
PCCPopulation, Concept, Context
PNEPain Neuroscience Education
PIPTPsychologically Informed Physical Therapy
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
PRISMA-ScRPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis—Scoping Review
RCTsRandomized Controlled Trials
ROBRisk Of Bias
TIDieRTemplate for Intervention Description and Replication
TPETherapeutic Patient Education
UKUnited Kingdom
USAUnited States of America
WHOWorld Health Organization

References

  1. WHO. Musculoskeletal Conditions; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022; Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/musculoskeletal-conditions (accessed on 26 November 2025).
  2. Allegri, M.; Lucioni, C.; Mazzi, S.; Serra, G. Social cost of chronic pain in Italy. Glob. Reg. Health Technol. Assess. 2015, 2, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lyng, K.D.; Djurtoft, C.; Bruun, M.K.; Christensen, M.N.; Lauritsen, R.E.; Larsen, J.B.; Birnie, K.A.; Stinson, J.; Hoegh, M.S.; Palsson, T.S.; et al. What is known and what is still unknown within chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic evidence and gap map. Pain 2023, 164, 1406–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. World Health Organization. Therapeutic Patient Education: An Introductory Guide; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  5. Friedman, A.J.; Cosby, R.; Boyko, S.; Hatton-Bauer, J.; Turnbull, G. Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: A systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J. Cancer Educ. 2011, 26, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cuenca-Martínez, F.; Suso-Martí, L.; Calatayud, J.; Ferrer-Sargues, F.J.; Muñoz-Alarcos, V.; Alba-Quesada, P.; Biviá-Roig, G. Pain neuroscience education in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: An umbrella review. Front. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 1272068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Watson, J.A.; Ryan, C.G.; Cooper, L.; Ellington, D.; Whittle, R.; Lavender, M.; Dixon, J.; Atkinson, G.; Cooper, K.; Martin, D.J. Pain Neuroscience Education for Adults with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Pain 2019, 20, 1140.e1–1140.e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wood, L.; Hendrick, P.A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pain neuroscience education for chronic low back pain: Short-and long-term outcomes of pain and disability. Eur. J. Pain 2019, 23, 234–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hajihasani, A.; Rouhani, M.; Salavati, M.; Hedayati, R.; Kahlaee, A.H. The Influence of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Pain, Quality of Life, and Depression in Patients Receiving Physical Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. PM R 2019, 11, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Escriche-Escuder, A.; Nijs, J.; Silbernagel, K.G.; van Wilgen, C.P.; Plinsinga, M.L.; Casaña, J.; Cuesta-Vargas, A.I. Pain neuroscience education in persistent painful tendinopathies: A scoping review from the Tendon PNE Network. Phys. Ther. Sport 2023, 63, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gifford, L.S.; Butler, D.S. The integration of pain sciences into clinical practice. J. Hand Ther. 1997, 10, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nijs, J.; Paul van Wilgen, C.; Van Oosterwijck, J.; van Ittersum, M.; Meeus, M. How to explain central sensitization to patients with ‘unexplained’ chronic musculoskeletal pain: Practice guidelines. Man. Ther. 2011, 16, 413–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Moseley, G.L. Reconceptualising pain according to modern pain science. Phys. Ther. Rev. 2007, 12, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zimney, K.J.; Louw, A.; Cox, T.; Puentedura, E.J.; Diener, I. Pain neuroscience education: Which pain neuroscience education metaphor worked best? S. Afr. J. Physiother. 2019, 75, 1329. [Google Scholar]
  15. Salazar-Méndez, J.; Leão Ribeiro, I.; Garrido-Castillo, M.; Gacitúa, J. Effects of pain neuroscience education on psycho-emotional and cognitive variables in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Eur. J. Physiother. 2024, 26, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zimney, K.; Van Bogaert, W.; Louw, A. The Biology of Chronic Pain and Its Implications for Pain Neuroscience Education: State of the Art. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Coronado, R.A.; Brintz, C.E.; McKernan, L.C.; Master, H.; Motzny, N.; Silva, F.M.; Goyal, P.M.; Wegener, S.T.; Archer, K.R. Psychologically informed physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain: Current approaches, implications, and future directions from recent randomized trials. Pain Rep. 2020, 5, e847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. López-de-Uralde-Villanueva, I.; Muñoz-García, D.; Gil-Martínez, A.; Pardo-Montero, J.; Muñoz-Plata, R.; Angulo-Díaz-Parreño, S.; Gómez-Martínez, M.; La Touche, R. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Graded Activity and Graded Exposure for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain. Pain Med. 2016, 17, 172–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hayes, S.C.; Luoma, J.B.; Bond, F.W.; Masuda, A.; Lillis, J. Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behav. Res. Ther. 2006, 44, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eastwood, F.; Godfrey, E. The efficacy, acceptability and safety of acceptance and commitment therapy for fibromyalgia—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Pain 2024, 18, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bawa, F.L.M.; Mercer, S.W.; Atherton, R.J.; Clague, F.; Keen, A.; Scott, N.W.; Bond, C.M. Does mindfulness improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2015, 65, e387–e400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Main, C.J.; George, S.Z. Psychologically informed practice for management of low back pain: Future directions in practice and research. Phys. Ther. 2011, 91, 820–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Silva Guerrero, A.V.; Maujean, A.; Campbell, L.; Sterling, M. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions Delivered by Physiotherapists on Pain, Disability and Psychological Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions. Clin. J. Pain 2018, 34, 838–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wilson, S.; Cramp, F. Combining a psychological intervention with physiotherapy: A systematic review to determine the effect on physical function and quality of life for adults with chronic pain. Phys. Ther. Rev. 2018, 23, 214–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Peters, M.D.J.; Godfrey, C.; McInerney, P.; Khalil, H.; Larsen, P.; Marnie, C.; Pollock, D.; Tricco, A.C.; Munn, Z. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid. Synth. 2022, 20, 953–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Correia, J.C.; Waqas, A.; Aujoulat, I.; Davies, M.J.; Assal, J.P.; Golay, A.; Pataky, Z. Evolution of Therapeutic Patient Education: A Systematic Scoping Review and Scientometric Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  27. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hoffmann, T.C.; Glasziou, P.P.; Boutron, I.; Milne, R.; Perera, R.; Moher, D.; Altman, D.G.; Barbour, V.; Macdonald, H.; Johnston, M.; et al. Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication [TIDieR] checklist and guide. BMJ 2014, 348, g1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Barker, T.H.; Stone, J.C.; Sears, K.; Klugar, M.; Tufanaru, C.; Leonardi-Bee, J.; Aromataris, E.; Munn, Z. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid. Synth. 2023, 21, 494–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aromataris, E.; Lockwood, C.; Porritt, K.; Pilla, B.; Jordan, Z. (Eds.) JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; JBI: Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2024; Available online: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global (accessed on 17 December 2025).
  31. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bennell, K.L.; Ahamed, Y.; Jull, G.; Bryant, C.; Hunt, M.A.; Forbes, A.B.; Kasza, J.; Akram, M.; Metcalf, B.; Harris, A.; et al. Physical therapist-delivered pain coping skills training and exercise for knee osteoarthritis: Randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2016, 68, 590–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Poulsen, E.; Hartvigsen, J.; Christensen, H.W.; Roos, E.M.; Vach, W.; Overgaard, S. Patient education with or without manual therapy compared to a control group in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. A proof-of-principle three-arm parallel group randomized clinical trial. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2013, 21, 1494–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Allen, K.D.; Woolson, S.; Hoenig, H.M.; Bongiorni, D.; Byrd, J.; Caves, K.; Hall, K.S.; Heiderscheit, B.; Hodges, N.J.; Huffman, K.M.; et al. Stepped exercise program for patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2021, 174, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Park, J.; McCaffrey, R.; Newman, D.; Liehr, P.; Ouslander, J.G. A pilot randomized controlled trial of the effects of chair yoga on pain and physical function among community-dwelling older adults with lower extremity osteoarthritis. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2017, 65, 592–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Song, J.; Wei, L.; Cheng, K.; Lin, Q.; Xia, P.; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Yang, T.; Chen, B.; Ding, A.; et al. The effect of modified Tai Chi exercises on the physical function and quality of life in elderly women with knee osteoarthritis. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2022, 14, 860762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Taglietti, M.; Facci, L.M.; Trelha, C.S.; de Melo, F.C.; da Silva, D.W.; Sawczuk, G.; Ruivo, T.M.; de Souza, T.B.; Sforza, C.; Cardoso, J.R. Effectiveness of aquatic exercises compared to patient-education on health status in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2018, 32, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rezende, M.U.; de Farias, F.E.S.; da Silva, C.A.C.; Cernigoy, C.H.A.; de Camargo, O.P. Objective functional results in patients with knee osteoarthritis submitted to a 2-day educational programme: A prospective randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2017, 2, e000200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rezende, M.U.; Hissadomi, M.I.; de Campos, G.C.; Frucchi, R.; Pailo, A.F.; Pasqualin, T.; Brito, N.L.R.; Santana, O.F.M.; Moreira, M.M.; Strutz, C.G.; et al. One-year results of an educational program on osteoarthritis: A prospective randomized controlled trial in Brazil. Geriatr. Orthop. Surg. Rehabil. 2016, 7, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rezende, M.U.; Frucchi, R.; Pailo, A.F.; de Campos, G.C.; Pasqualin, T.; Hissadomi, M.I. Parqve: Project arthritis recovering quality of life through education: Two-year results. Acta Ortop. Bras. 2017, 25, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  41. Esculier, J.-F.; Bouyer, L.J.; Dubois, B.; Fremont, P.; Moore, L.; McFadyen, B.; Roy, J.-S. Is combining gait retraining or an exercise programme with education better than education alone in treating runners with patellofemoral pain? A randomised clinical trial. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Murphy, S.L.; Kratz, A.L.; Kidwell, K.; Lyden, A.K.; Geisser, M.E.; Williams, D.A. Brief time-based activity pacing instruction as a singular behavioral intervention was not effective in participants with symptomatic osteoarthritis. Pain 2016, 157, 1563–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Olsen, A.L.; Magnussen, L.H.; Skjaerven, L.H.; Assmus, J.; Sundal, M.-A.; Furnes, O.; Hallan, G.; Strand, L.I. Basic body awareness therapy versus standard care in hip osteoarthritis. A randomized controlled trial. Physiother. Res. Int. 2022, 27, e1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Allen, K.D.; Oddone, E.Z.; Coffman, C.J.; Datta, S.K.; Juntilla, K.A.; Lindquist, J.H.; Walker, T.A.; Weinberger, M.; Bosworth, H.B. Telephone-based self-management of osteoarthritis: A randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010, 153, 570–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ganji, R.; Pakniat, A.; Armat, M.R.; Tabatabaeichehr, M.; Mortazavi, H. The effect of self-management educational program on pain intensity in elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 6, 1062–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jinnouchi, H.; Kitamura, A.; Matsudaira, K.; Kakihana, H.; Oka, H.; Yamagishi, K.; Kiyama, M.; Iso, H. Brief self-exercise education for adults with chronic knee pain: A randomized controlled trial. Mod. Rheumatol. 2023, 33, 408–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Coleman, S.; Briffa, N.K.; Carroll, G.; Inderjeeth, C.; Cook, N.; McQuade, J. A randomised controlled trial of a self-management education program for osteoarthritis of the knee delivered by health care professionals. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2012, 14, R21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Rini, C.; Katz, A.; Nwadugbo, A.; Porter, L.; Somers, T.; Keefe, F. Changes in Identification of Possible Pain Coping Strategies by People with Osteoarthritis who Complete Web-based Pain Coping Skills Training. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2021, 28, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Victor, C.R.; Triggs, E.; Ross, F.; Lord, J.; Axford, J.S. Lack of benefit of a primary care-based nurse-led education programme for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Clin. Rheumatol. 2005, 24, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cheung, T.; Ho, Y.S.; Yuen, C.-S.; Lam, C.-S.; So, B.C.-L.; Chen, S.-C.; Leung, D.Y.P.; Suen, L.K.-P.; So, L.T.-Y.; Ho, A.C.-H.; et al. Electromoxibustion for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2020, 41, 101254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Bagheri, S.; Naderi, A.; Mirali, S.; Calmeiro, L.; Brewer, B.W. Adding Mindfulness Practice to Exercise Therapy for Female Recreational Runners with Patellofemoral Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Athl. Train. Allen Press. 2021, 56, 902–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chaharmahali, L.; Gandomi, F.; Yalfani, A.; Fazaeli, A. The effect of mindfulness and motivational interviewing along with neuromuscular exercises on pain, function, and balance of women affected by knee osteoarthritis: A rater-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. Disabil. Rehabil. 2023, 46, 2650–2661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bennell, K.L.; Nelligan, R.; Dobson, F.; Rini, C.; Keefe, F.; Kasza, J.; French, S.; Bryant, C.; Dalwood, A.; Abbott, J.H.; et al. Effectiveness of an Internet-Delivered Exercise and Pain-Coping Skills Training Intervention for Persons with Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized Trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2017, 166, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bennell, K.L.; Lawford, B.J.; Keating, C.; Brown, C.; Kasza, J.; Mackenzie, D.; Metcalf, B.; Kimp, A.J.; Egerton, T.; Spiers, L.; et al. Comparing Video-Based, Telehealth-Delivered Exercise and Weight Loss Programs With Online Education on Outcomes of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2022, 175, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. da Silva, F.S.; de Melo, F.E.S.; do Amaral, M.M.G.; Caldas, V.V.A.; Pinheiro, Í.L.D.; Abreu, B.J.; Vieira, W.H. Efficacy of simple integrated group rehabilitation program for patients with knee osteoarthritis: Single-blind randomized controlled trial. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2015, 52, 309–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mecklenburg, G.; Smittenaar, P.; Erhart-Hledik, J.C.; Perez, D.A.; Hunter, S. Effects of a 12-Week Digital Care Program for Chronic Knee Pain on Pain, Mobility, and Surgery Risk: Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Foo, C.N.; Arumugam, M.; Lekhraj, R.; Lye, M.S.; Mohd-Sidik, S.; Jamil Osman, Z. Effectiveness of Health-Led Cognitive Behavioral-Based Group Therapy on Pain, Functional Disability and Psychological Outcomes among Knee Osteoarthritis Patients in Malaysia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Saw, M.M.; Kruger-Jakins, T.; Edries, N.; Parker, R. Significant improvements in pain after a six-week physiotherapist-led exercise and education intervention, in patients with osteoarthritis awaiting arthroplasty, in South Africa: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2016, 17, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Skou, S.T.; Rasmussen, S.; Laursen, M.B.; Rathleff, M.S.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Simonsen, O.; Roos, E.M. The efficacy of 12 weeks non-surgical treatment for patients not eligible for total knee replacement: A randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2015, 23, 1465–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Skou, S.T.; Roos, E.M.; Simonsen, O.; Laursen, M.B.; Rathleff, M.S.; Arendt-Nielsen, L.; Rasmussen, S. The efficacy of non-surgical treatment on pain and sensitization in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A pre-defined ancillary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2016, 24, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bezalel, T.; Carmeli, E.; Katz-Leurer, M. The effect of a group education programme on pain and function through knowledge acquisition and home-based exercise among patients with knee osteoarthritis: A parallel randomised single-blind clinical trial. Physiotherapy 2010, 96, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mellor, R.; Bennell, K.; Grimaldi, A.; Nicolson, P.; Kasza, J.; Hodges, P.; Wajswelner, H.; Vicenzino, B. Education plus exercise versus corticosteroid injection use versus a wait and see approach on global outcome and pain from gluteal tendinopathy: Prospective, single blinded, randomised clinical trial. BMJ 2018, 361, k1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wilson, R.; Abbott, J.H.; Mellor, R.; Grimaldi, A.; Bennell, K.; Vicenzino, B. Education plus exercise for persistent gluteal tendinopathy improves quality of life and is cost-effective compared with corticosteroid injection and wait and see: Economic evaluation of a randomised trial. J. Physiother. 2023, 69, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rabiei, P.; Sheikhi, B.; Letafatkar, A. Examining the influence of pain neuroscience education followed by a Pilates exercises program in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2023, 25, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Cheung, D.S.T.; Yeung, W.-F.; Suen, L.K.-P.; Chong, T.C.; Ho, Y.-S.; Yu, B.Y.-M.; Chan, L.Y.-T.; Chen, H.-Y.; Lao, L.-X. Self-administered acupressure for knee osteoarthritis in middle-aged and older adults: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Acupunct. Med. 2020, 38, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Marconcin, P.; Espanha, M.; Teles, J.; Bento, P.; Campos, P.; André, R.; Yázigi, F. A randomized controlled trial of a combined self-management and exercise intervention for elderly people with osteoarthritis of the knee: The PLE2NO program. Clin. Rehabil. 2018, 32, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sullivan, T.; Allegrante, J.P.; Peterson, M.G.; Kovar, P.A.; MacKenzie, C.R. One-year followup of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who participated in a program of supervised fitness walking and supportive patient education. Arthritis Rheum. Off. J. Am. Coll. Rheumatol. 1998, 11, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bandak, E.; Christensen, R.; Overgaard, A.; Kristensen, L.E.; Ellegaard, K.; Guldberg-Moller, J.; Bartholdy, C.; Hunter, D.J.; Altman, R.; Bliddal, H.; et al. Exercise and education versus saline injections for knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled equivalence trial. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2022, 81, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Henriksen, M.; Christensen, R.; Kristensen, L.E.; Bliddal, H.; Bartholdy, C.; Boesen, M.; Ellegaard, K.; Guldberg-Moller, J.; Hunter, D.J.; Altman, R.; et al. Exercise and education versus intra-articular saline for knee osteoarthritis: A 1-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2023, 31, 627–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hopman-Rock, M.; Westhoff, M.H. The effects of a health educational and exercise program for older adults with osteoarthritis for the hip or knee. J. Rheumatol. 2000, 27, 1947–1954. [Google Scholar]
  71. Khachian, A.; Seyedoshohadaei, M.; Haghani, H.; Amiri, F. Effect of self-management program on outcome of adult knee osteoarthritis. Int. J. Orthop. Trauma. Nurs. 2020, 39, 100797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rezende, M.U.; Brito, N.; Farias, F.; Silva, C.; Cernigoy, C.; da Silva, J.M.R.; Moreira, M.M.; Santana, O.; Hissadomi, M.I.; Frucchi, R.; et al. Improved function and strength in patients with knee osteoarthritis as a result of adding a two-day educational program to usual care. Prospective randomized trial. Osteoarthr. Cartil. Open 2021, 3, 100137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bennell, K.L.; Egerton, T.; Martin, J.; Abbott, J.H.; Metcalf, B.; McManus, F.; Sims, K.; Pua, Y.H.; Wrigley, T.V.; Forbes, A.; et al. Effect of physical therapy on pain and function in patients with hip osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014, 311, 1987–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bennell, K.L.; Campbell, P.K.; Egerton, T.; Metcalf, B.; Kasza, J.; Forbes, A.; Bills, C.; Gale, J.; Harris, A.; Kolt, G.S.; et al. Telephone Coaching to Enhance a Home-Based Physical Activity Program for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2017, 69, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Ahmad, M.A.; Yusof, A.; Hamid, M.S.A.; Amin, F.H.Z.; Kamsan, S.S.; Daud, D.M.A.; Ajit Singh, D.K. Effects of Self-management Program as Adjunctive to Usual Rehabilitation Exercise on Pain and Functional Outcomes in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Res. Health Sci. 2023, 23, e00569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ettinger, W.H.; Burns, R.; Messier, S.P.; Applegate, W.; Rejeski, W.J.; Morgan, T.; Shumaker, S.; Berry, M.J.; O’Toole, M.; Monu, J.; et al. A randomized trial comparing aerobic exercise and resistance exercise with a health education program in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. The Fitness Arthritis and Seniors Trial [FAST]. JAMA 1997, 277, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. James, J.; Selfe, J.; Goodwin, P. Does a bespoke education session change levels of catastrophizing, kinesiophobia and pain beliefs in patients with patellofemoral pain? A feasibility study. Physiother. Pract. Res. 2021, 42, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Maurer, B.T.; Stern, A.G.; Kinossian, B.; Cook, K.D.; Schumacher, H.R., Jr. Osteoarthritis of the knee: Isokinetic quadriceps exercise versus an educational intervention. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1999, 80, 1293–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nagasawa, Y.; Shibata, A.; Fukamachi, H.; Ishii, K.; Oka, K. Physical therapist-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy and exercise for older outpatients with knee osteoarthritis: A pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2022, 34, 784–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Brosseau, L.; Wells, G.A.; Kenny, G.P.; Reid, R.; Maetzel, A.; Tugwell, P.; Huijbregts, M.; McCullough, C.; De Angelis, G.; Chen, L. The implementation of a community-based aerobic walking program for mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: A knowledge translation randomized controlled trial: Part II: Clinical outcomes. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ackerman, I.N.; Buchbinder, R.; Osborne, R.H. Challenges in Evaluating an Arthritis Self-management Program for People with Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Real-world Clinical Settings. J. Rheumatol. 2012, 39, 1047–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Saffari, M.; Emami Meybodi, M.K.; Sanaeinasab, H.; Karami, A.; Pakpour, A.H.; Koenig, H.G. A theory of planned behavior-based intervention to improve quality of life in patients with knee/hip osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rheumatol. 2018, 37, 2505–2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nuñez, M.; Nuñez, E.; Segur, J.M.; Macule, F.; Quinto, L.; Hernandez, M.V.; Vilalta, C. The effect of an educational program to improve health-related quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis on waiting list for total knee replacement: A randomized study. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2006, 14, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Cimas, M.; Ayala, A.; Sanz, B.; Agulló-Tomás, M.S.; Escobar, A.; Forjaz, M.J. Chronic musculoskeletal pain in European older adults: Cross-national and gender differences. Eur. J. Pain 2018, 22, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ingram, M.; Symmons, D.P. The burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Medicine 2018, 46, 152–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dreinhöfer, K.E.; Reichel, H.; Käfer, W. Strategies for prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions. Lower limb pain. Best. Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2007, 21, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Al Adal, S.; Pourkazemi, F.; Mackey, M.; Hiller, C.E. The Prevalence of Pain in People With Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review. J. Athl. Train. 2019, 54, 662–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wyns, A.; Hendrix, J.; Lahousse, A.; De Bruyne, E.; Nijs, J.; Godderis, L.; Polli, A. The Biology of Stress Intolerance in Patients with Chronic Pain-State of the Art and Future Directions. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nijs, J.; Mairesse, O.; Neu, D.; Leysen, L.; Danneels, L.; Cagnie, B.; Meeus, M.; Moens, M.; Ickmans, K.; Goubert, D. Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018, 98, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Field, R.; Pourkazemi, F.; Turton, J.; Rooney, K. Dietary Interventions Are Beneficial for Patients with Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Pain Med. Malden Mass. 2021, 22, 694–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Nijs, J.; Lahousse, A. Introducing the comprehensive pain management editorial series. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2023, 27, 100506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nijs, J.; Malfliet, A.; Nishigami, T. Nociplastic pain and central sensitization in patients with chronic pain conditions: A terminology update for clinicians. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2023, 27, 100518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Nijs, J.; De Baets, L.; Hodges, P. Phenotyping nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain: Who, how, & why? Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2023, 27, 100537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Nijs, J.; Lahousse, A.; Malfliet, A. A paradigm shift from a tissue- and disease-based approach towards multimodal lifestyle interventions for chronic pain: 5 steps to guide clinical reasoning. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2023, 27, 100556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Roose, E.; Nijs, J.; Moseley, G.L. Striving for better outcomes of treating chronic pain: Integrating behavioural change strategies before, during, and after modern pain science education. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2023, 27, 100578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Nijs, J.; Mairesse, O.; Tang, N.K.Y. The importance of sleep in the paradigm shift from a tissue- and disease-based pain management approach towards multimodal lifestyle interventions for chronic pain. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2024, 28, 100594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Nijs, J.; Wyns, A.; Hendrix, J. The importance of stress in the paradigm shift from a tissue- and disease-based pain management approach towards multimodal lifestyle interventions for chronic pain. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2024, 28, 101061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Nijs, J.; Mostaqim, K.; Oostendorp, R. Exercise therapy and physical activity in the paradigm shift from a tissue- and disease-based pain management approach towards multimodal lifestyle interventions for chronic pain. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2024, 28, 101101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Elma, Ö.; Nijs, J.; Malfliet, A. The importance of nutritional factors on the road toward multimodal lifestyle interventions for persistent pain. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2024, 28, 101119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Linton, S.J.; O’Sullivan, P.B.; Zetterberg, H.E.; Vlaeyen, J.W.S. The ‘future’ pain clinician: Competencies needed to provide psychologically informed care. Scand. J. Pain 2024, 24, 20240017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Mersha, A.G.; Bryant, J.; Booth, K.; Watson, L.; Kennedy, M. The effectiveness of internet-based group behavioural interventions on lifestyle modifications: A systematic review. Prev. Med. 2024, 186, 108099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Salazar-Méndez, J.; Cuyul-Vásquez, I.; Ponce-Fuentes, F.; Núñez-Cortés, R.; Mendez-Rebolledo, G.; Fuentes, J. Effectiveness of in-group versus individually administered pain neuroscience education on clinical and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain: Randomized controlled study protocol. PeerJ 2024, 12, e17507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Will, J.; Gupta, M.; Zaretsky, J.; Dowlath, A.; Testa, P.; Feldman, J. Enhancing the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials Using Large Language Models: Cross-Sectional Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2025, 27, e69955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Alowais, S.A.; Alghamdi, S.S.; Alsuhebany, N.; Alqahtani, T.; Alshaya, A.I.; Almohareb, S.N.; Aldairem, A.; Alrashed, M.; Bin Saleh, K.; Badreldin, H.A.; et al. Revolutionizing healthcare: The role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. BMC Med. Educ. 2023, 23, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Romm, M.J.; Ahn, S.; Fiebert, I.; Cahalin, L.P. A Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Pain Neuroscience Education, Using Dosage and Treatment Format as Moderator Variables. Pain Pract. 2021, 21, 366–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Núñez-Cortés, R.; Salazar-Méndez, J.; Calatayud, J.; Malfliet, A.; Lluch, E.; Mendez-Rebolledo, G.; Guzmán-Muñoz, E.; López-Bueno, R.; Suso-Martí, L. The optimal dose of pain neuroscience education added to an exercise programme for patients with chronic spinal pain: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Pain 2024, 165, 1196–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bruijniks, S.J.E.; Bosmans, J.; Peeters, F.P.M.L.; Hollon, S.D.; van Oppen, P.; van den Boogaard, M.; Dingemanse, P.; Cuijpers, P.; Arntz, A.; Franx, G.; et al. Frequency and change mechanisms of psychotherapy among depressed patients: Study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial comparing twice-weekly versus once-weekly sessions of CBT and IPT. BMC Psychiatry 2015, 15, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Cormier, A.A.; Desmeules, F.; Dupuis, F.; Lafrance, S.; Côté, J.S.; Dubé, M.O.; Michener, L.; Malliaras, P.; Désilets, M.; Masse-Alarie, H.; et al. Efficacy of Therapeutic Patient Education for Managing Subacute and Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2025, 55, 623–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Christe, G.; Pizzolato, V.; Meyer, M.; Nzamba, J.; Pichonnaz, C. Unhelpful beliefs and attitudes about low back pain in the general population: A cross-sectional survey. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 2021, 52, 102342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Healthcare 14 00290 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of search and screening.
Figure 1. Flow chart of search and screening.
Healthcare 14 00290 g001
Healthcare 14 00290 g002
Figure 2. Geographic distribution of included studies.
Figure 2. Geographic distribution of included studies.
Healthcare 14 00290 g002
Healthcare 14 00290 g003
Figure 3. Number of studies on different chronic lower limb conditions.
Figure 3. Number of studies on different chronic lower limb conditions.
Healthcare 14 00290 g003
Table 1. PCC of the review.
Table 1. PCC of the review.
Population (P)Adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain in lower extremities.
Concept (C)Therapeutic Patient Education according to the WHO’s definition [4]. Interventions were included if they incorporated structured, interactive educational components.
Context (C)Clinical, community, or mixed contexts.
Table 2. Characteristics of the studies.
Table 2. Characteristics of the studies.
FIRST AUTHORYEARNATIONPOPULATION
(OSTEOARTHRITIS)		SAMPLE SIZEAGEGENDER
Ackerman [81]2012AustraliaHip OA, Knee OA126Mean: 65.19 SD: NRM: 38% F: 62%
Allen [44]2010USAHip OA, Knee OA523Mean: 60.1 SD: 10.4M: 93% F: 7%
Hopman-Rock [70]2000NetherlandsHip OA, Knee OA120Mean: 65.3 SD: 5.5M: 0% F: 100%
Murphy [42]2016USAHip OA, Knee OA193Mean: 64.7 SD: 8.41M: 38% F: 62%
Park [35]2017USAHip OA, Knee OA112Mean: 75.3 SD: 7.5M: 24% F: 76%
Rini [48]2021USAHip OA, Knee OA113Mean: 67.62 SD: 9.45M: 19% F: 81%
Saffari [82]2018IranHip OA, Knee OA120Mean: NR SD: NRM: 24% F: 76%
Saw [58]2016South AfricaHip OA, Knee OA74Mean: 60.72 SD: 5.54M: 19% F: 81%
Bennell [73]2014AustraliaHip OA102Mean: 63.56 SD: NRM: 39% F: 61%
Olsen [43]2022NorwayHip OA101Mean: 63.07 SD: NRM: 79% F: 21%
Poulsen [33]2013DenmarkHip OA118Mean: 64.63 SD: NRM: 59% F: 41%
Ahmad [75]2023MalaysiaKnee OA80Mean: 65.43 SD: NRNR
Allen [34]2021USAKnee OA345Mean: 60 SD: 10.3M: 85% F: 15%
Bandak [68]2022DenmarkKnee OA206Mean: 68.4 SD: NRM: 54% F: 46%
Bennell [32]2016AustraliaKnee OA222Mean: 63.42 SD: NRM: 40% F: 60%
Bennell [74]2017AustraliaKnee OA168Mean: 62.25 SD: NRM: 37% F: 63%
Bennell [54]2022AustraliaKnee OA415Mean: 64.74 SD: NRM: 45% F: 55%
Bezalel [61]2010IsraelKnee OA50Mean: 75 SD: 5M: 26% F: 74%
Brosseau [80]2012CanadaKnee OA222Mean: 63.4 SD: 8.6M: 31% F: 69%
Chaharmahali [52]2023IranKnee OA60Mean: 54.13 SD: NRM: 0% F: 100%
Cheung [50]2019Hong KongKnee OA35Mean: 62.14 SD: 5.93M: 23% F: 79%
Cheung [65]2020Hong KongKnee OA38Mean: 74 SD: 7.03M: 0% F: 100%
Coleman [47]2012AustraliaKnee OA147Mean: 65 SD: 8M: 25% F: 75%
Da Silva [55]2015BrazilKnee OA41Mean: 58.5 SD: NRM: 13% F: 87%
Ettinger [76]1997USAKnee OA439Mean: 68.67 SD: NRM: 30% F: 70%
Foo [57]2020MalaysiaKnee OA300Mean: 54.37 SD: NRM: 17% F: 83%
Ganji [45]2018IranKnee OA82Mean: 64.96 SD: NRNR
Henriksen [69]2023DenmarkKnee OA206Mean: 68.4 SD: NRM: 54% F: 46%
Khachian [71]2020IranKnee OA80Mean: 58.5 SD: NRM: 28% F: 72%
Marconcin [66]2018PortugalKnee OA80Mean: 69.1 SD: 5.8M: 0% F: 100%
Maurer [78]1999USAKnee OA113Mean: 65.41 SD: NRM: 58% F: 42%
Nagasawa [79]2022JapanKnee OA30Mean: 74.2 SD: NRM: 10% F: 90%
Nunez [83]2006SpainKnee OA100Mean: 71.05 SD: NRM: 29% F: 71%
Rabiei [64]2023IranKnee OA54Mean: 60.5 SD: 5.6M: 59% F: 41%
Rezende [39]2016BrazilKnee OA228Mean: NR SD: NRM: 20% F: 80%
Rezende [38]2017BrazilKnee OA228Mean: NR SD: NRM: 20% F: 80%
Rezende [40]2017BrazilKnee OA228Mean: NR SD: NRM: 20% F: 80%
Rezende [72]2021BrazilKnee OA222Mean: 63.5 SD: NRM: 19% F: 81%
Skou [59]2015DenmarkKnee OA100Mean: 65.95 SD: NRM: 49% F: 51%
Skou [60]2016DenmarkKnee OA100Mean: 65.95 SD: NRM: 49% F: 51%
Song [36]2022ChinaKnee OA40Mean: 64.15 SD: 8.56M: 0% F: 100%
Sullivan [67]1998USAKnee OA102Mean: 72.96 SD: NRM: 15% F: 85%
Taglietti [37]2018BrazilKnee OA60Mean: 67.98 SD: NRM: 32% F: 68%
Victor [49]2005UKKnee OA193Mean: 63.13 SD: NRM: 27% F: 73%
FIRST AUTHORYEARNATIONPOPULATION
(KNEE PAIN)		SAMPLE SIZEAGEGENDER
Bennell [53]2017AustraliaChronic Knee Pain148Mean: 61.15 SD: NRM: 44% F: 56%
Jinnouchi [46]2023JapanChronic Knee Pain46Median: 69 IQR: 65–75M: 11% F: 89%
Mecklenburg [56]2018USAChronic Knee Pain162Mean: 46 SD: 12M: 60% F: 40%
Bagheri [51]2021IranPatello-femoral pain30Mean: 28.3 SD: 7.08M: 0% F: 100%
Esculier [41]2018CanadaPatello-femoral pain69Mean: 30.8 SD: NRM: 38% F: 62%
James [77]2021UKPatello-femoral pain24Mean: 26.85 SD: NRM: 25% F: 75%
FIRST AUTHORYEARNATIONPOPULATION
(TENDINOPATHY)		SAMPLE SIZEAGEGENDER
Mellor [62]2018AustraliaGluteal tendinopathy204Mean: 54.8 SD: 8.8M: 19% F: 81%
Wilson [63]2023AustraliaGluteal tendinopathy204Mean: 54.8 SD: 8.8M: 19% F: 81%
Legend of acronyms. F = females; M = males; NR = not reported; OA = osteoarthritis; SD = standard deviation; USA = United States of America; UK = United Kingdom.
Table 3. ROB assessment and outcome measures (pain, function, disability, and quality of life) for each study.
Table 3. ROB assessment and outcome measures (pain, function, disability, and quality of life) for each study.
FIRST AUTHORYEARPOPULATION
(OSTEOARTHRITIS)		ROB: JBI SCORE (%)OUTCOME MEASURES
PAINFUNCTIONDISABILITYQUALITY OF LIFE
Ackerman [81]2012Hip OA, Knee OA9/13 (69.23%) HRQOL
Allen [44]2010Hip OA, Knee OA7/13 (53.85%)AIMS
Hopman-Rock [70]2000Hip OA, Knee OA4/13 (30.77%)VAS VAS-QOL
Murphy [42]2016Hip OA, Knee OA9/13 (69.23%)WOMAC-P
Park [35]2017Hip OA, Knee OA8/13 (61.54%)WOMAC-P
Rini [48]2021Hip OA, Knee OA9/13 (69.23%)AIMS
Saffari [82]2018Hip OA, Knee OA8/13 (61.54%)EQ-VAS SF-12, EQ-SD
Saw [58]2016Hip OA, Knee OA5/13 (38.46%)BPI
Bennell [73]2014Hip OA9/13 (69.23%)VASWOMAC-F
Olsen [43]2022Hip OA9/13 (69.23%)NRSHOOS
Poulsen [33]2013Hip OA11/13 (84.62%)NRS
Ahmad [75]2023Knee OA10/13 (76.92%) KOOS
Allen [34]2021Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)WOMAC-PWOMAC-FWOMAC-T
Bandak [68]2022Knee OA9/13 (69.23%)KOOS-P
Bennell [32]2016Knee OA11/13 (84.62%)NRSWOMAC-F
Bennell [74]2017Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)VASWOMAC-F
Bennell [54]2022Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)NRSWOMAC-F
Bezalel [61]2010Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)WOMAC-PWOMAC-FWOMAC-T
Brosseau [80]2012Knee OA8/13 (61.54%) SF-36
Chaharmahali [52]2023Knee OA9/13 (69.23%)VASWOMAC-F
Cheung [50]2019Knee OA9/13 (69.23%)NRS
Cheung [65]2020Knee OA6/13 (46.15%)NRS
Coleman [47]2012Knee OA11/13 (84.62%)WOMAC-PWOMAC-F SF-36
Da Silva [55]2015Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)LEQUESNE INDEXLEQUESNE INDEX
Ettinger [76]1997Knee OA9/13 (69.23%)NRS6MWT, LCTSELFREPORT
Foo [57]2020Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)KOOS-P
Ganji [45]2018Knee OA7/13 (53.85%)VAS
Henriksen [69]2023Knee OA8/13 (61.54%)KOOS-P
Khachian [71]2020Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)KOOS-PKOOS-ADL KOOS-QOL
Marconcin [66]2018Knee OA8/13 (61.54%)KOOS-PKOOS-ADL KOOS-QOL
Maurer [78]1999Knee OA6/13 (46.15%) WOMAC
Nagasawa [79]2022Knee OA6/13 (46.15%) JKOM
Nunez [83]2006Knee OA10/13 (76.92%) SF-36
Rabiei [64]2023Knee OA11/13 (84.62%)WOMAC-PWOMAC-F
Rezende [39]2016Knee OA7/13 (53.85%)VASWOMAC SF-36
Rezende [38]2017Knee OA6/13 (46.15%)VASWOMAC SF-36
Rezende [40]2017Knee OA7/13 (53.85%) TUG, FTSTS
Rezende [72]2021Knee OA5/13 (38.46%)WOMAC-PWOMAC-F
Skou [59]2015Knee OA11/13 (84.62%)KOOS-PKOOS-ADL KOOS-QOL
Skou [60]2016Knee OA11/13 (84.62%)VAS
Song [36]2022Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)WOMAC-PWOMAC-F
Sullivan [67]1998Knee OA3/13 (23.08%)VASAIMS
Taglietti [37]2018Knee OA10/13 (76.92%)VAS, WOMAC-P WOMAC
Victor [49]2005Knee OA7/13 (53.85%)WOMAC-P
FIRST AUTHORYEARPOPULATION
(KNEE PAIN)		ROB: JBI SCORE (%)OUTCOME MEASURES
PAINFUNCTIONDISABILITYQUALITY OF LIFE
Bennell [53]2017Chronic Knee Pain10/13 (76.92%)NRSWOMAC-F
Jinnouchi [46]2023Chronic Knee Pain9/13 (69.23%)NRSKOOS EQ-5D
Mecklenburg [56]2018Chronic Knee Pain7/13 (53.85%)KOOS-PKOOS-F
Bagheri [51]2021Patello-femoral pain10/13 (76.92%)VASKOOS
Esculier [41]2018Patello-femoral pain9/13 (69.23%)VASKOOS-ADL
James [77]2021Patello-femoral pain7/13 (53.85%) KOOS-PF
FIRST AUTHORYEARPOPULATION
(TENDINOPATHY)		ROB: JBI SCORE (%)OUTCOME MEASURES
PAINFUNCTIONDISABILITYQUALITY OF LIFE
Mellor [62]2018Gluteal tendinopathy10/13 (76.92%)NRS
Wilson [63]2023Gluteal tendinopathy10/13 (76.92%) QALY
Legend of acronyms. AIMS (Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale); BPI (Brief Pain Inventory); EQ-5D (EuroQol Five-dimensional); EQ-VAS (EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale); F (Function); FTSTS (Five Times Sit To Stand Test); HOOS (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score); HRQOL (Health-Related Quality Of Life); JBI (Johanna Briggs Institute); JKOM (Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure); KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score); KOOS-PF (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patello-Femoral pain and osteoarthritis); LCT (Lifting and Carrying Test); NRS (Numeric Pain Rating Scale); OA (Osteoarthritis); P (Pain); QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Year); QOL (Quality Of Life); ROB (Risk of Bias); SF-12 (Short Form 12 health survey questionnaire); SF-36 (Short Form 36 health survey questionnaire); 6MWT (6 Minutes Walking Test); T (Total); TUG (Time Up and Go); VAS (Visual Analogue Scale); WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index).
Table 4. Results for pain, function, disability and quality of life.
Table 4. Results for pain, function, disability and quality of life.
TPE INTERVENTION VERSUSCONTROLPAINFUNCTIONDISABILITYQUALITY
OF LIFE
TPE aloneVSExercise● [35,36,37]● [36]● [37,76]
● [78]● [80]
TPE aloneVSInformation● [33,38,39,40,41,42,43]● [38,39,40,41,43] ● [39,40,46,81]
● [44,45,46]● [46]
TPE aloneVSUsual care● [42]
● [44,47]● [47] ● [47,82]
TPE aloneVSNo intervention● [48,49] ● [49]
TPE aloneVSChinese medicine● [50]
TPE + ExerciseVSExercise● [51,52]● [51,52]● [77,79]● [66]
● [64]● [64]
TPE + ExerciseVSInformation● [53,54,55,56]● [53,54,55,56]● [34]
● [41,65,66]● [41,66]
TPE + ExerciseVSUsual care● [57,58,59,60]● [59,67]● [75]● [59]
● [67]
TPE + ExerciseVSHeat therapy● [61]● [61]● [61]
TPE + ExerciseVSNo intervention● [62,63] ● [70,83]
● [70]
TPE + ExerciseVSSham intervention● [68,69]
TPE + ExerciseVSCorticosteroid● [62,63] ● [63]
TPE + Manual therapyVSInformation● [33]
TPE + PhysiotherapyVSSham ultrasound● [73]● [73]
TPE + PhysiotherapyVSPhysiotherapy● [74]● [74]
TPE + Exercise + Medical careVSMedical care● [71]● [71] ● [71]
TPE + MedicationVSMedication● [72]● [72]
Legend of colors. ● = better results for TPE group; ● = similar results between TPE group and control group; ● = better results for control group. The references are reported in square brackets.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vanti, C.; Bianchini, M.; Mantineo, A.; Ballardin, F.; Pillastrini, P. Therapeutic Patient Education in Adults with Chronic Lower Limb Musculoskeletal Pain: A Scoping Review. Healthcare 2026, 14, 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14030290

AMA Style

Vanti C, Bianchini M, Mantineo A, Ballardin F, Pillastrini P. Therapeutic Patient Education in Adults with Chronic Lower Limb Musculoskeletal Pain: A Scoping Review. Healthcare. 2026; 14(3):290. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14030290

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vanti, Carla, Michael Bianchini, Alessio Mantineo, Francesco Ballardin, and Paolo Pillastrini. 2026. "Therapeutic Patient Education in Adults with Chronic Lower Limb Musculoskeletal Pain: A Scoping Review" Healthcare 14, no. 3: 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14030290

APA Style

Vanti, C., Bianchini, M., Mantineo, A., Ballardin, F., & Pillastrini, P. (2026). Therapeutic Patient Education in Adults with Chronic Lower Limb Musculoskeletal Pain: A Scoping Review. Healthcare, 14(3), 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14030290

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop