339: A Flow-Based Framework for Designing Nonpharmacological Pain Interventions

Topic: Clinical Science
Subtopic: Non-specific to any diagnosis, Psychology, Non-pharmacological treatments, Treatment/management

Background and Aims: Nonpharmacological pain interventions are widely used across clinical settings, yet it remains unclear why some approaches appear more therapeutically meaningful than others. Existing explanations often rely on broad concepts such as distraction, adherence, or patient engagement, but these terms do not adequately distinguish between superficial participation and forms of involvement that may meaningfully alter the pain experience. Flow, a state of absorbed, goal-directed, and intrinsically rewarding engagement, may offer a more precise way to conceptualize this difference. The aim of this work was to propose a new conceptual framework for nonpharmacological pain intervention design, using flow as a lens to identify the features of treatment experiences that may be most relevant for pain modulation, therapeutic participation, and clinical usefulness.

Methods: This work was developed as a concept-building and framework-generating project. Literature from pain medicine, psychology, rehabilitation, and nonpharmacological treatment research was interpreted through a design-oriented lens to identify recurring patterns relevant to how interventions are experienced by patients. Rather than grouping interventions only by modality, the analysis focused on cross-cutting therapeutic features, including structure, feedback, challenge, meaning, and active participation. These recurring elements were then organized into a conceptual framework intended to clarify how intervention design may shape the quality of engagement during treatment. The goal was not to evaluate comparative efficacy, but to generate a clinically relevant model that can support discussion, future hypothesis development, and more structured design of nonpharmacological pain interventions.

Results: The proposed framework suggests that nonpharmacological pain interventions may differ not only by modality, but by the kind of engagement they generate. Several recurring features were identified as potentially important for flow-supportive intervention design: clear goals, immediate feedback, meaningful activity, active participation, and an appropriate balance between task demands and patient capability. Within the framework, these features may help create absorbed and rewarding engagement that is more therapeutically relevant than passive distraction alone. This may have implications for pain modulation through attentional capture, reduced self-focused rumination, motivational reinforcement, emotion regulation, and improved tolerance of therapeutic activity. The framework is applicable across a range of settings, including virtual reality, music-based interventions, exercise, arts-based activities, and rehabilitation, and offers a way to think more systematically about why some interventions may feel more useful, sustainable, and clinically meaningful than others.

Conclusions: This framework presents flow not simply as a psychological construct, but as a potentially useful design principle for nonpharmacological pain care. Its main contribution is to shift attention from intervention modality alone to the structure and quality of engagement produced during treatment. In doing so, it offers a new conceptual basis for discussion in pain medicine and a practical starting point for future intervention design and research. Rather than proposing flow as an established mechanism of analgesia, the framework is intended as a hypothesis-generating model that may help guide more focused scientific dialogue, intervention development, and empirical testing in the field of nonpharmacological pain management.

References: Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row; 1990.
Eccleston C, Crombez G. Pain demands attention: a cognitive-affective model of the interruptive function of pain. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(3):356–366.
Wiech K. Deconstructing the sensation of pain: the influence of cognitive processes on pain perception. Science. 2016;354(6312):584–587.
Zeidan F, Vago DR. Mindfulness meditation-based pain relief: a mechanistic account. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1373(1):114–127.
Mallari B, Spaeth EK, Goh H, Boyd BS. Virtual reality as an analgesic for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Res. 2019;12:2053–2085.
Garza-Villarreal EA, Pando V, Vuust P, Parsons C. Music-induced analgesia in chronic pain conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2017;20(7):597–610.
Gromakovskis V, Gūtmanis MG. Flow-Induced Analgesia: A Conceptual Review of Biopsychosocial and Neurobiological Mechanisms of Pain Modulation. J Pain Res. 2025;18:6723–6743.

Presenting Author: Valerija Mizavcova
Submitting Author: Valerija Mizavcova

Senior Author: Vlodeks Gromakovskis

IASP 2026 Global Year theme of Neuropathic Pain: No

• Vlodeks Gromakovskis: MD, PT - Pain Medicine Unit, Neurology Department, Association of Health Centers (Veselības Centru Apvienība; VCA), Medical Center Elite, Riga, Latvia