Learn in your language
Skip to content
A Level · Cambridge (CIE) · 9990

Evaluate approaches to managing pain

Compare biochemical, cognitive, acupuncture and TENS approaches at syllabus level, while evaluating individual response, cultural context and the limits of one-factor explanations.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 · Health Psychology · 2028–2030 · Version 1 · OPTION-HE-3.3.3

Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Health Psychology sections 3.3.1–3.3.3, 2028–2030 Version 1. Example studies illustrate a topic and are not official Cambridge materials or mark schemes. This is psychology education, not pain diagnosis or treatment advice.

Before you begin

  • This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Health Psychology section 3.3.3. It compares syllabus categories and evaluates claims; it does not advise a real person to start, stop or change any treatment.

Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.

Quick readiness check

Which statement correctly evaluates a pain-management claim?

What you will learn

  • Biochemical treatment
  • Cognitive strategies: attention diversion, non-pain imagery and cognitive redefinition
  • Acupuncture and TENS stimulation therapy

Pain management can draw on several kinds of approach

The syllabus asks learners to compare biochemical treatment, cognitive strategies and alternative treatments. These are categories for psychological study, not instructions to choose a treatment for a real person. A person’s symptoms, health history, preferences, access and potential risks require assessment by an appropriately qualified practitioner.

Biochemical treatment uses medication to influence biological processes involved in pain. There are different medicines and mechanisms; the syllabus category does not imply one drug is right for every pain or person. A psychology evaluation can discuss a biological focus, the importance of suitable outcome measures and the fact that any real treatment decision requires individual professional assessment. This lesson does not give medicine names, doses or treatment plans.

The syllabus cognitive strategies are attention diversion, non-pain imagery and cognitive redefinition. Attention diversion shifts focus toward a non-pain task or stimulus. Non-pain imagery uses mental images unrelated to the painful sensation. Cognitive redefinition changes how a person interprets or describes a sensation, for example by framing it in less threatening terms where that is acceptable to them. These strategies aim to influence experience or coping; they do not prove that pain is imagined, remove every cause, or work identically for everyone.

Acupuncture and TENS are distinct stimulation approaches

Acupuncture is an approach involving the insertion of fine needles at selected sites by a practitioner. It has cultural and historical contexts and is studied using different comparison conditions. In evaluating evidence, consider how a study defines the intervention and comparison, whether participants can be blinded to the procedure, what outcome is measured and how long it is followed. Do not present it as universally effective or as a student self-treatment procedure.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) uses a device to deliver electrical stimulation through electrodes placed on the skin; Cambridge groups it as stimulation therapy/TENS. It is distinct from medication and from acupuncture. Gate-control theory is often used to explain why stimulation of non-pain sensory pathways might alter pain transmission, but a theoretical mechanism is not proof that TENS will help in every condition. In MacLachlan et al.’s case, Alan reported that his TENS course worsened his pain and was stopped; that single report shows individual variation, not that TENS is generally harmful or ineffective.

A treatment can be assessed using reported pain intensity, function, quality of life, side effects and the person’s goals. Short-term change in one rating does not necessarily show lasting benefit or improved function. A study with a suitable comparison, clear protocol and enough follow-up is more informative about an average effect, while interviews can reveal how acceptability and context varied for individual participants.

A biopsychosocial view avoids false either-or choices

Biological, psychological and social factors can interact. A biological intervention may be experienced differently depending on expectation, attention, prior experience and support; a cognitive strategy can change coping without proving that a biological process is absent. Reductionism can help test one mechanism, but a holistic approach asks how multiple influences and outcomes fit together.

Individual and situational explanations matter because response can differ between people and across settings. Cultural differences may shape the meaning, acceptability and communication of pain or treatment. Researchers should avoid assuming that one group’s practice is the default or that a cultural label predicts an individual’s preference. Ask what the person values and interpret group averages cautiously.

Determinism and free will can be discussed without suggesting that someone chooses to feel pain. People may make choices about whether to accept an offered approach, but those choices are shaped by access, advice, previous experience, cost, side effects and other circumstances. Ethical research and care require informed consent, honest uncertainty and respect for a person’s decision.

Evaluate evidence at the level it supports

A plausible theory, a person’s testimonial, a symptom rating and a controlled comparison are different kinds of support. The gate-control model may provide a rationale for studying stimulation or attention, but it does not itself demonstrate treatment effectiveness. A single case can show what happened for one person; it cannot calculate an average effect. A group average can show a pattern but may conceal individual differences.

Useful questions include: Was the treatment clearly defined? Was there a comparison group? Could expectations or researcher attention influence reports? Were outcomes selected in advance and measured consistently? Did the study assess function and adverse effects as well as pain intensity? Were the sample and follow-up appropriate for the claim? A careful conclusion says what the evidence shows, for whom, in which setting and with what uncertainty.

For a real person, a psychology lesson cannot determine a safe or appropriate intervention. It can help a learner compare explanations and evaluate research without prescribing, discouraging professional care or blaming someone whose pain continues.

Sources for this lesson

Pause and explain

What is the safest interpretation of Alan’s report about TENS in MacLachlan et al. (2004)?

Put the idea to work

Worked example

A school wellbeing page claims that TENS is proven to work for all pain because gate-control theory explains how stimulation could alter pain signals. Evaluate the argument.

Show the worked solution
  1. Separate a theoretical explanation from evidence that an intervention improves outcomes.
  2. Identify the need for suitable comparison studies, defined outcomes and consideration of adverse effects and individual response.
  3. Use MacLachlan et al. only as one case example, not a population estimate or treatment trial.

Answer Gate-control theory offers a way to discuss modulation of sensory transmission, but a plausible mechanism does not prove that TENS is effective for every pain or person. Evidence should be judged from suitable studies with clear comparisons, outcomes and follow-up, while considering harms and individual variation. MacLachlan et al. reported that TENS worsened pain for one person in one case; this illustrates variability, not a general treatment conclusion. A school page should not give treatment advice.

Try a topic test

Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.

Test this topic →

From guided practice to a new situation

Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.

1 · Guided

A student is comparing biochemical and cognitive approaches for an essay. Give one accurate distinction and one evaluation point without making a treatment recommendation.

Give me a hint

Compare the level each approach targets, then note why outcome evidence and context still matter.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Biochemical approaches use medication to influence biological processes involved in pain.
  2. Cognitive strategies such as diversion, non-pain imagery and redefinition target attention or appraisal.
  3. Neither category implies universal benefit; compare clearly measured outcomes and individual context.

Biochemical treatment targets biological processes through medication, whereas cognitive strategies target aspects of attention or interpretation. This theoretical distinction does not show that either approach is superior or suitable for a particular person. Evaluation should examine study design, reported intensity and function, follow-up, acceptability and variation between participants.

Look for these in your work

  • Categories distinguished
  • No universal efficacy claim
  • Evidence and context evaluated
2 · Independent

A researcher claims a short-term drop in a VAS score proves an intervention improved a participant’s life. Identify two additional questions needed before accepting the claim.

Give me a hint

Separate intensity from other outcomes, and ask how the change was compared and followed up.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Was there a suitable comparison and a consistent protocol to help distinguish intervention effects from expectation or time?
  2. Did the study assess function, daily activity, quality of life, acceptability and adverse effects separately from intensity?
  3. Was the change sustained and did the outcome matter to participants with different experiences?

A short-term VAS change supports only a claim about one reported intensity score in that context. The researcher should ask whether a suitable comparison was used, whether the change lasted and whether function or quality of life changed. Acceptability and adverse effects are separate outcomes, and group results may conceal individual responses.

Look for these in your work

  • Comparison considered
  • Outcome dimensions separated
  • Follow-up and individual variation included
3 · Transfer

A community organisation wants a neutral information card about pain-management research. Draft three evidence questions it should invite readers to ask about a study.

Give me a hint

Include intervention definition, outcome/comparison and whose experience the result represents.

Compare my reasoning
  1. What approach was studied, and how clearly was it described?
  2. What outcomes and comparison were used, and were follow-up and possible adverse effects considered?
  3. Who took part, what setting was involved, and how much individual variation was reported?

A useful card can ask what intervention was actually studied, what outcomes and comparison were used, and who took part. It should also prompt readers to check follow-up, function and adverse effects, and whether findings apply to their context. The card should explain that study findings do not determine an individual’s care; an appropriately qualified professional can discuss personal questions.

Look for these in your work

  • Three research-evaluation questions
  • Sample and context included
  • No personal treatment direction

Common mistakes

  • Treating a theory of pain modulation as proof that a treatment works
  • Calling a cognitive strategy evidence that pain is imaginary or under voluntary control
  • Assuming a medication, acupuncture or TENS is suitable for everyone
  • Using one case or testimonial to estimate a population effect
  • Evaluating only a pain-intensity score while ignoring function, acceptability and harms
  • Confusing a psychology lesson with diagnosis or clinical guidance
Recall without your notes

What can you explain now?

Why does gate-control theory not prove that TENS will work for every person?

Compare with the explanation

A proposed mechanism is not itself a treatment trial; outcome evidence, comparison conditions, context and individual response still need evaluation.

Theoretical plausibility and demonstrated effectiveness are separate claims.

After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.

Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.

Make it stick

Name the syllabus’s biochemical, cognitive and alternative pain-management categories. Explain why a proposed mechanism is not enough to prove a universal treatment effect.

If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.

Keep learning Psychology

Course scope and assessment

Seven original lessons map all 15 AS research-method and methodological-concept sections to explained Guided, Independent and Transfer practice. All 12 compulsory AS core studies have original study-specific teaching and staged practice; five additional A Level methodology lessons cover research design and validity. All 15 Clinical, all 15 Consumer (2.1.1–2.5.3) and all 15 Health (3.1.1–3.5.3) Psychology sections link to original teaching and staged practice. All 15 Organisational Psychology sections 4.1–4.5 now have original teaching and explained staged practice; the six new 4.4–4.5 lessons bring the planning map to 92 of 92 indexed sections. Consumer lessons cover physical and psychological environments; decision models, heuristics and mistakes; packaging, selling and buying; advertising, self-monitoring, product placement, brand recognition and slogans. Evaluation boundaries are explicit: studies use particular products, samples, tasks and settings; gaze, recall, self-report, EEG indices, ratings, choices and purchases are different outcomes. Health evidence is bounded: Laba et al. measured hypothetical preferences; Riekert and Drotar raise a non-response concern; Chung and Naya's cap tracked openings, not swallowing; Chaney et al. was a short caregiver-reported pilot; Yokley and Glenwick examined immunisation attendance in one public-health setting. MacLachlan et al. report one patient, not a controlled treatment effect; Brudvik et al. compared separate child, parent and physician ratings in one emergency department. Chandola et al. found a cohort association; Wang et al. measured responses during a monitored arithmetic task; Evans and Wener observed commuters; Bridge et al. found mixed self-rated outcomes in radiotherapy. Janis and Feshbach measured short-term self-reports in one school; Lewin et al. tested a rehabilitation package, not information alone. Tapper et al. and Fox et al. studied bounded school and worksite programmes; incentive effects do not establish transfer or rule out reporting effects. Weinstein measured comparative expectations, while Seligman’s framework is conceptual and Shoshani and Steinmetz used a school-level comparison. These findings do not establish universal health effects or diagnose individuals. Need-theory examples use a child measurement study, not a workplace test; SMART is a practical checklist, not a motivational theory. Landry et al. compared reward framing with student volunteers in a lab; this does not establish universal effects in workplaces. Cuadrado et al. (2008) measured undergraduate evaluations of presented leaders, not workplace performance or hiring; this does not establish a universal gender effect. The historical 1995 Munchausen criteria are not a current diagnostic checklist. Cambridge’s 2028–2030 Reference List treats Oruč et al. (1997) as an example of genetic explanation although its participants had bipolar I; gambling disorder is listed in Cambridge’s Clinical topic but classified under addictive behaviours in ICD-11. Candidates choose two options, but all four remain listed so schools can select a route. The 92-section count is a planning index, not a Cambridge score. Remaining work is deeper coverage review, separate-year syllabus reconciliation, timed-paper practice and human subject-expert review. The separate 2027 and 2024–2026 syllabuses are not reconciled into this route. Practice is not official grading, a timed-paper simulation or human subject-expert review.

StudyForA · Learn with understanding

Original teaching content and links to official sources. Check your exam year and qualification before using a resource.