Chronic pain is a public health priority that affects 18% of Dutch and 16% of German adults, representing a major societal burden. The Ems Dollart Region (EDR), which forms the northern part of the Dutch–German border area, is particularly characterised by lower incomes, more physically demanding jobs and lower health literacy, which are associated with higher pain prevalence. Individuals with lower socioeconomic status face greater pain-related disability and reduced quality of life. Public health campaigns underpinned by pain science education provide a strategy to improve understanding of pain among the wider public by addressing common misconceptions about its causes and management. However, large-scale population-level interventions and evaluations of such campaigns remain limited.

This protocol describes the design and implementation of a cross-border public health campaign in the EDR, aimed at improving public understanding of pain, changing attitudes and beliefs and promoting healthy behaviours. We will conduct a quasi-experimental before–after study in the EDR with a control group in Flanders (Belgium). The intervention is guided by behaviour change and biopsychosocial models. The campaign will deliver tailored content via social media, broadcast, print and online advertisements over a 24-month period. Two independent cross-sectional samples will be surveyed at baseline and at 2-year follow-up, comprising 3200 participants per measurement wave from three regions: the Netherlands and Germany as intervention regions, and Flanders, Belgium, as the control region. The primary outcome is the prespecified Pain Concepts Questionnaire ratio score, assessing pain-related knowledge, attitudes and beliefs. The primary analysis will use an adjusted difference-in-differences framework to estimate whether change in the primary outcome differs between the combined intervention regions and the control region. Secondary analyses will examine the Netherlands and Germany separately and will evaluate healthcare utilisation, medication use, health-related quality of life and work absenteeism.

This study protocol was reviewed by the Medical Ethics Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen and the University of Oldenburg. The study was considered not subject to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (non-WMO declaration; reference number M24.345555, issued on 31 December 2024) and was approved by the University of Oldenburg Ethics Committee (reference number 2025–056, issued on 07 March 2025). Informed consent was obtained electronically by the research agency at the time of participants’ registration with the research panel. Study findings, regardless of outcome, will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences.

Cross-border collaboration in healthcare has become increasingly important in the context of European integration, particularly in border regions where institutional and health system interactions are most pronounced. These regions offer opportunities for joint healthcare provision, patient and workforce mobility and shared use of resources. However, healthcare governance largely remains a national responsibility, introducing administrative, legal and institutional barriers to coordinated care. This review will examine the structures and mechanisms in place for cooperation and will map the available evidence relevant to the functions of cross-border healthcare in Europe using the Health System Performance Assessment framework.

This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Eligibility will be determined using the Population–Concept–Context approach. A three-step search strategy will include an initial limited search, comprehensive searches across six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, Global Health, Scopus) and grey literature searching. Two reviewers will independently screen studies via Covidence. Data will be extracted using a standardised form and synthesised descriptively. AI tools can assist with specific steps in the Responsible AI in Evidence Synthesis framework, provided they are supplemented by manual verification.

Ethical approval is not required as this review uses publicly available literature. Findings will be disseminated through an open-access publication, conferences and policy briefs targeting cross-border healthcare stakeholders.