Teaching Models in Pain Medicine under a Multidisciplinary Framework: Current Status and Advances

Abstract

Objective:

To analyze the disciplinary characteristics and current status of pain medicine education in China within a multidisciplinary framework, summarize representative reform practices at home and abroad, and propose strategies for constructing competency‑oriented teaching models for pain medicine.

Methods:

This study adopts a narrative review and analytic approach. Relevant national policy documents, competency‑based medical education (CBME) frameworks, and published literature on pain medicine education were synthesized, together with representative teaching practices from Chinese medical schools and teaching hospitals. The analysis focused on curriculum structure, teaching methods, assessment models, and interdisciplinary integration in pain medicine.

Results:

Pain medicine, as a highly interdisciplinary subspecialty of anesthesiology, is increasingly recognized as a key “bridging discipline” for comprehensive pain management. However, current curricula in China are still dominated by fragmented, discipline‑based content and traditional models of didactic teaching plus department‑based clinical instruction. Pain‑related topics are often dispersed across multiple courses, with limited systematic training in multidisciplinary collaboration, whole‑course management, and humanistic care. In response to the “New Medical Sciences” initiative and CBME, emerging trends include: (1) reorganization of teaching around clinical problems and pain disease spectra; (2) integration of multidisciplinary team (MDT)–based contextual teaching; (3) expanded use of CBL, PBL, team‑based learning, interprofessional education, simulation/VR, and blended online–offline models; and (4) a shift from knowledge‑ and skill‑based assessment to multidimensional, competency‑oriented evaluation using OSCEs, formative and multisource assessment, and milestone frameworks. Nonetheless, major challenges persist in top‑level curriculum design, depth of multidisciplinary integration, faculty development, incentive mechanisms, educational resources, and the methodological rigor of effectiveness research.

Conclusion:

Pain medicine education in China is undergoing a critical transition toward multidisciplinary, problem‑oriented, and competency‑based models, but remains in an exploratory stage with uneven development. Establishing tiered competency frameworks and curriculum standards, reconstructing curricula around authentic care pathways, building stable interdisciplinary teaching teams, strengthening multicenter educational research, and improving policy and incentive systems are essential to forming a new, high‑quality paradigm for pain medicine education. These efforts are key to cultivating interdisciplinary pain specialists capable of delivering comprehensive, patient‑centered pain management in modern healthcare systems.