Use of Nonpharmacologic Interventions by Adults With High-Impact Chronic Pain in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain Research & Management Pub Date : 2025-04-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/prm/5213178
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.

在美国,患有严重慢性疼痛的成年人使用非药物干预:一项横断面分析。
引言:很少有研究比较高影响慢性疼痛(HICP)和低影响慢性疼痛(LICP)患者使用非药物干预(npi)的差异,或根据疼痛部位描述npi使用的差异。目的:描述npi在HICP和LICP亚组中的使用情况,并研究HICP患者疼痛部位与npi使用之间的关系。方法:使用2019年全国健康访谈调查数据。在确定报告患有慢性疼痛的受访者后,我们随后创建了高疼痛影响组和低疼痛影响组。我们分析中的其他变量包括社会人口统计数据、健康特征和疼痛管理特征。我们的分析包括描述性统计、卡方检验和调整的调查加权logistic回归模型。结果:美国成人慢性疼痛的估计患病率为19.9% (95% CI: 19.5-20.0),该组中36.4% (95% CI: 35.1-38.0)患有HICP。在HICP患者中,69.7% (95% CI: 67.6-71.9)报告在过去3个月内使用了≥1个npi,而LICP患者为62.9% (95% CI: 61.1-64.6)。最常使用的NPI是物理、康复或职业治疗(25.9%,95% CI: 24.0-27.9),最少使用的是同伴支持小组(2.7%,95% CI: 2.0-3.6)。在HICP患者中,与那些在这些部位没有令人烦恼的疼痛的患者相比,恼人的背部疼痛(OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.19-1.95)和上肢疼痛(OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.003-1.59)与任何npi的使用更多相关。结论:我们的研究结果强调,大多数患有HICP的美国成年人最近使用npi来控制他们的疼痛,但特定npi的使用差异很大。使用npi的几率因疼痛部位的不同而不同。未来的工作应检查获得特定的非药物治疗方案的障碍或恼人疼痛部位使用非药物治疗方案的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Research & Management
Pain Research & Management CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
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