Problem of pain in the USA: evaluating the generalisability of high-impact chronic pain models over time using National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.

BMJ public health Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-27
Titilola Falasinnu, Md Belal Hossain, Mohammad Ehsanul Karim, Kenneth Arnold Weber, Sean Mackey
{"title":"Problem of pain in the USA: evaluating the generalisability of high-impact chronic pain models over time using National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.","authors":"Titilola Falasinnu, Md Belal Hossain, Mohammad Ehsanul Karim, Kenneth Arnold Weber, Sean Mackey","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>High-impact chronic pain (HICP) significantly affects the quality of life for millions of U.S. adults, imposing substantial economic/healthcare burdens. Disproportionate effects are observed among racial/ethnic minorities and older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We leveraged the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2016 (n=32,980), 2017 (n=26,700), and 2021 (n=28,740) to validate and develop analytical models for HICP. Initial models (2016 NHIS data) identified correlates associated with HICP, including hospital stays, diagnosis of specific diseases, psychological symptoms, and employment status. We assessed the models' generalizability and drew comparisons across time. We constructed five validation scenarios to account for variations in the availability of predictor variables across datasets and different time frames for pain assessment questions. We used logistic regression with LASSO and random forest techniques. We assessed model discrimination, calibration, and overall performance using metrics such as area under the curve (AUC), calibration slope, and Brier score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Scenario 1, validating the NHIS 2016 model against 2017 data, demonstrated excellent discrimination with an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88-0.90) for both LASSO and random forest models. Subgroup-specific performance varied, with the lowest AUC among adults aged ≥65 years (0.81, 95% CI: 0.78-0.82) and the highest among Hispanic respondents (0.91, 95% CI: 0.88-0.94). Model calibration was generally robust, although underfitting was observed for Hispanic respondents (calibration slope: 1.31). Scenario 3, testing the NHIS 2016 model on 2021 data, showed reduced discrimination (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.81-0.83) and overfitting (calibration slopes < 1). De novo models based on 2021 data showed comparable discrimination (AUC: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.85-0.87) but poorer calibration when validated against older datasets.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings underscore the potential of these models to guide personalized medicine strategies for HICP, aiming for more preventive rather than reactive healthcare. However, the model's broader applicability requires further validation in varied settings and global populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":101362,"journal":{"name":"BMJ public health","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: High-impact chronic pain (HICP) significantly affects the quality of life for millions of U.S. adults, imposing substantial economic/healthcare burdens. Disproportionate effects are observed among racial/ethnic minorities and older adults.

Methods: We leveraged the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2016 (n=32,980), 2017 (n=26,700), and 2021 (n=28,740) to validate and develop analytical models for HICP. Initial models (2016 NHIS data) identified correlates associated with HICP, including hospital stays, diagnosis of specific diseases, psychological symptoms, and employment status. We assessed the models' generalizability and drew comparisons across time. We constructed five validation scenarios to account for variations in the availability of predictor variables across datasets and different time frames for pain assessment questions. We used logistic regression with LASSO and random forest techniques. We assessed model discrimination, calibration, and overall performance using metrics such as area under the curve (AUC), calibration slope, and Brier score.

Results: Scenario 1, validating the NHIS 2016 model against 2017 data, demonstrated excellent discrimination with an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88-0.90) for both LASSO and random forest models. Subgroup-specific performance varied, with the lowest AUC among adults aged ≥65 years (0.81, 95% CI: 0.78-0.82) and the highest among Hispanic respondents (0.91, 95% CI: 0.88-0.94). Model calibration was generally robust, although underfitting was observed for Hispanic respondents (calibration slope: 1.31). Scenario 3, testing the NHIS 2016 model on 2021 data, showed reduced discrimination (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.81-0.83) and overfitting (calibration slopes < 1). De novo models based on 2021 data showed comparable discrimination (AUC: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.85-0.87) but poorer calibration when validated against older datasets.

Conclusion: These findings underscore the potential of these models to guide personalized medicine strategies for HICP, aiming for more preventive rather than reactive healthcare. However, the model's broader applicability requires further validation in varied settings and global populations.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信