To the editor,

We have taken an interest in the article by Órdenes-Mora et al., recently published in Medwave [1]. This brief communication qualitatively analyzed the curricula of accredited kinesiology undergraduate courses in Chile to determine whether they complied with the curricular recommendation of the International Association for the Study of Pain [2]. We appreciate the intention to raise awareness of opportunities for improvement in kinesiology undergraduate pain science education. However, we have detected some inconsistencies that we want to draw attention to.

To begin with, the analysis carried out by Órdenes-Mora and collaborators is not congruent with that proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain. The authors state in their conclusion that "the totality of kinesiology curricula in Chile do not present a specific program for pain education, as recommended by said association" [1]. However, the International Association for the Study of Pain explicitly describes: "It is recommended that, where possible, the curriculum be taught as a discrete unit, with content and competencies aligned horizontally and vertically" [2]. In other words, a flexible integration of the domains and competencies of its curriculum is proposed rather at the micro-curricular level. The authors considered the presence or not of a "program" exclusively focused on pain for their analysis, which seems to be reductionist, considering that in the United States as of 2015, 94% of kinesiology careers integrate pain science at the micro-curricular level [3]. Consequently, the reductionist analysis deeply compromises the validity of the conclusions and recommendations.

Secondly, we appreciate the intention to provide recommendations for improving kinesiology education. However, we believe it is relevant to highlight that recommendations two and three are not supported by the results of Órdenes-Mora et al. [1]. Moreover, the recommendation to provide "continuing education" and "teacher training" courses is striking, especially because these aspects were not evaluated in this research.

Thirdly, to contrast the results of Órdenes-Mora et al. [1], we performed an analysis of the curricula, learning guides, and/or syllabi of the pain-related subjects of the three universities with which the authors of this letter are affiliated (Table 1). The micro-curricular analysis showed that the subjects incorporate the four domains recommended by the International Association for the Study of Pain, contrasting with that reported by Órdenes-Mora et al. [1]. Interestingly, the universities analyzed do not incorporate a specific subject on pain; however, they comply with the domains and competencies recommended by that association. These preliminary data allow us to speculate that a similar situation could occur in other kinesiology schools in Chile. However, further research is needed.

Finally, we believe a deeper analysis of how pain sciences are taught in kinesiology in Chile is necessary. Such an analysis could be contrasted not only with the curricular recommendations of the International Association for the Study of Pain but also with the professional training framework of World Physiotherapy [4].