Natasha L Parman, Robert H Schmicker, Sean D Rundell
{"title":"Use of Nonpharmacologic Interventions by Adults With High-Impact Chronic Pain in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.","authors":"Natasha L Parman, Robert H Schmicker, Sean D Rundell","doi":"10.1155/prm/5213178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Few studies compare differences in the use of nonpharmacologic interventions (NPIs) between those with high-impact chronic pain (HICP) and low-impact chronic pain (LICP) or describe differences in the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain. <b>Objectives:</b> To describe the use of NPIs in HICP and LICP subgroups and to examine the association between locations of bothersome pain and use of NPIs among those with HICP. <b>Methods:</b> We used data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. After identifying respondents who reported having chronic pain, we then created high and low pain impact subgroups. Additional variables in our analyses included sociodemographic data, health characteristics, and pain management characteristics. Our analysis included descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, and adjusted survey-weighted logistic regression models. <b>Results:</b> The estimated prevalence of chronic pain in US adults was 19.9% (95% CI: 19.5-20.0), with 36.4% (95% CI: 35.1-38.0) of that group having HICP. Of those with HICP, 69.7% (95% CI: 67.6-71.9) reported using ≥ 1 NPIs in the past 3 months, compared to 62.9% (95% CI: 61.1-64.6) with LICP. The most frequently used NPI was physical, rehabilitative, or occupational therapy (25.9%, 95% CI: 24.0-27.9), and the least used was a peer support group (2.7%, 95% CI: 2.0-3.6). Among those with HICP, bothersome back pain (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.19-1.95) and upper extremity pain (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.003-1.59) are associated with the greater use of any NPIs compared to those without bothersome pain at these sites, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> Our findings highlight that most US adults with HICP have recently used NPIs to manage their pain, but the use of specific NPIs varied considerably. The odds of using NPIs were different depending on the locations of bothersome pain. Future work should examine barriers for access to specific NPIs or the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":19913,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research & Management","volume":"2025 ","pages":"5213178"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11996269/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research & Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/prm/5213178","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Few studies compare differences in the use of nonpharmacologic interventions (NPIs) between those with high-impact chronic pain (HICP) and low-impact chronic pain (LICP) or describe differences in the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain. Objectives: To describe the use of NPIs in HICP and LICP subgroups and to examine the association between locations of bothersome pain and use of NPIs among those with HICP. Methods: We used data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. After identifying respondents who reported having chronic pain, we then created high and low pain impact subgroups. Additional variables in our analyses included sociodemographic data, health characteristics, and pain management characteristics. Our analysis included descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, and adjusted survey-weighted logistic regression models. Results: The estimated prevalence of chronic pain in US adults was 19.9% (95% CI: 19.5-20.0), with 36.4% (95% CI: 35.1-38.0) of that group having HICP. Of those with HICP, 69.7% (95% CI: 67.6-71.9) reported using ≥ 1 NPIs in the past 3 months, compared to 62.9% (95% CI: 61.1-64.6) with LICP. The most frequently used NPI was physical, rehabilitative, or occupational therapy (25.9%, 95% CI: 24.0-27.9), and the least used was a peer support group (2.7%, 95% CI: 2.0-3.6). Among those with HICP, bothersome back pain (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.19-1.95) and upper extremity pain (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.003-1.59) are associated with the greater use of any NPIs compared to those without bothersome pain at these sites, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings highlight that most US adults with HICP have recently used NPIs to manage their pain, but the use of specific NPIs varied considerably. The odds of using NPIs were different depending on the locations of bothersome pain. Future work should examine barriers for access to specific NPIs or the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain.
期刊介绍:
Pain Research and Management is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pain management.
The most recent Impact Factor for Pain Research and Management is 1.685 according to the 2015 Journal Citation Reports released by Thomson Reuters in 2016.