What Does a BPS Year of AI, Technology and Innovation Mean for People Living with Pain?
As the British Pain Society begins its themed year, we asked the Expert Patient and Carer Committee (EPCC) and Lived Experience Collective made up of people living with pain and those who support them, what they really think about AI, technology and innovation in pain care.
Our survey showed people living with pain are neither blindly optimistic nor resistant to advances in technology - they are hopeful, but they want AI and technology they can trust.
Respondents described clear hopes that AI, technology and innovation could improve access to support, information, management techniques and new treatments. Yet those hopes sat alongside equally strong concerns about accuracy, exclusion, the loss of human connection and technology being used poorly or in place of human care. Plus, not everyone is using or wants to use AI and technology for pain management yet.
The findings aren't a representative national sample (21 respondents), but they surface five important conversation starters for anyone developing technology for people living with pain now and in the future.
1. People are open to innovation
Respondents talked about innovation not as a single transformational product, but as an opportunity to live better: improved mental wellbeing, reduced isolation, better mobility, faster access to support, and more coordinated care.
“With pain sometimes the usual coping mechanisms may not work for a number of reasons. Innovation allows us to observe any new treatments that can have a positive impact for individuals with pain.”
For others, the stakes were higher - a chance for “a real step change in the quality of life of many.” Innovation is valued not because it's new, but because of the better life it might unlock:
-
Better access by connecting people to support and expertise sooner
-
Joined-up care by reducing fragmentation between services
-
Reduced isolation by supporting mental wellbeing and social connection
This brings opportunities to solve common problems through efficiency and productivity:
“I currently get notified about an appointment from several different sources when one would suffice.”
There were conditions for accepting this innovation though. It must be proven to work, developed with input from people living with pain, recommended by experts, and capable of filling real gaps in care.
2. People want practical support
Technology earned its value from what it could help people do day-to-day. For example, monitoring symptoms, recognising patterns, supporting self-management and prompting timely action when pain was escalating to;
“Recognise when pain is becoming more severe and intervene.”
Among those who had already used pain-management technology (apps, wearables or virtual reality) experiences were mixed. Some found real benefit in tracking symptoms and building awareness of their condition; others hit friction around usability, accessibility, or simply whether the tool added meaningful value to daily life.
People imagined technologies that could predict flare-ups, support self-management and provide holistic information for “a 360 view - bringing together all health information”.
That mixed experience may link to the gap between interest and use in the survey data. One third of respondents (33%) had tried a pain-management technology, and 39% had never used any form of technology to manage their pain at all.
This isn't a lack of appetite - it points to people waiting for tools that are genuinely accessible, easy to use and clearly worth adopting. Understanding that barrier further is important to improve patient care.
3. AI could help people manage pain more effectively
Respondents were more cautious about AI but still saw clear opportunities. The most popular potential use for AI was access to information and resources (67%), followed by symptom tracking and flare-up warnings (57%), and communication with healthcare professionals (48%).
“It can give me instant access to information regarding pain management along with the source material for the data.”
Several respondents also pointed to AI's potential to ease the administrative burden on healthcare professionals. For example through digital scribing, frees up clinicians to focus more on patients.
4. Trust matters
Caution around AI centred on specific, recurring concerns: inaccurate advice, overly generalised recommendations, and the risk of losing human interaction altogether.
“I have only used AI ChatGPT and Claude and neither are reliable in providing advice.”
“More use of AI means less human interaction. This doesn't help patients with pain.”
When asked what would make AI trustworthy, respondents were consistent:
-
Personalisation can provide support tailored to individual needs
-
Evidence and recommendations must be based on robust clinical evidence and sources
-
Human oversight of AI should support, not replace, professional judgement
-
Transparency to help people living with pain understand how advice is generated and sourced
-
Good governance to ensure that AI is safe, reliable, ethical and accountable
These issues also don’t exist in isolation with some respondents raising the negative environmental impact that goes along with AI progress.
5. Nothing about us without us
Through activities aligned with the National Co-development Hub for Digital Health Interventions in Chronic Pain (launching late 2026; a cross-sector network highlighting best practice in co-design and lived experience) similar themes were explored through focus groups on VR, wearables, AI-based applications and symptom-tracking tools. Three themes emerged there too: trust and transparency, empowerment through representation, and ease of use through inclusivity and adaptability.
Our findings echo this. Almost everyone who answered the question (94%) said it was very important that people living with pain are involved in developing future tools and innovations.
“AI has its place, but there is significant risk of digital exclusion if it becomes the norm for all treatments and interventions”
Nearly 15% of respondents said they don’t use AI at all. The positive impact of AI will only be felt by those who can confidently access it, which automatically leaves a gap to consider who is left out of the conversation from the start.
The benefits of AI, technology and innovation will only be realised if solutions are accessible and designed with a diverse range of voices, not simply for them.
A professional perspective: keeping people at the centre of innovation
For pain professionals, the promise of AI, technology and innovation isn't simply about doing things faster - it's about whether new approaches can deliver better, safer and more person-centred care.
Encouragingly, professional priorities closely mirror those raised by people living with pain: better access to information, stronger support for self-management, evidence-based innovation, and preserving the human side of care.
There is also a clear responsibility to involve people living with pain in developing these technologies, alongside the clinicians who will use them. As one professional put it: “Don't assume you know what people living with pain need. Involve people from diverse communities as partners from the very beginning and throughout the development process.” New tools must also undergo rigorous scientific evaluation and be accessible, trusted and practical to use.
Perhaps the most important insight from this survey is that people living with pain are not simply asking for more technology. They are asking for better support, enabled - not replaced - by advances in AI, technology and innovation. AI is a potential tool, not an end in itself.
As the British Pain Society begins its themed year, the challenge isn't simply to explore what these technologies can do, but to ensure they are developed and used in ways that genuinely improve the lives of the people they are intended to support, while actively considering and avoiding potential negative or harmful impacts.
