{"title":"Differences in Pain Coping Between Black and White Americans: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Samantha M Meints, Megan M Miller, Adam T Hirsh","doi":"10.1016/j.jpain.2015.12.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Unlabelled: </strong>Compared with white individuals, black individuals experience greater pain across clinical and experimental modalities. These race differences may be due to differences in pain-related coping. Several studies examined the relationship between race and pain coping; however, no meta-analytic review has summarized this relationship or attempted to account for differences across studies. The goal of this meta-analytic review was to quantify race differences in the overall use of pain coping strategies as well as specific coping strategies. Relevant studies were identified using electronic databases, an ancestry search, and by contacting authors for unpublished data. Of 150 studies identified, 19 met inclusion criteria, resulting in 6,489 participants and 123 effect sizes. All of the included studies were conducted in the United States. Mean effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model. Compared with white individuals, black individuals used pain coping strategies more frequently overall (standardized mean difference [d] = .25, P < .01), with the largest differences observed for praying (d = .70) and catastrophizing (d = .40). White individuals engaged in task persistence more than black individuals (d = -.28). These results suggest that black individuals use coping strategies more frequently, specifically strategies associated with poorer pain outcomes. Future research should examine the extent to which the use of these strategies mediates race differences in the pain experience.</p><p><strong>Perspective: </strong>Results of this meta-analysis examining race differences in pain-related coping indicate that, compared with white individuals, black individuals use coping strategies more frequently, specifically those involving praying and catastrophizing. These differences in coping may help to explain race differences in the pain experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"37 1","pages":"642-53"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4885774/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2015.12.017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Unlabelled: Compared with white individuals, black individuals experience greater pain across clinical and experimental modalities. These race differences may be due to differences in pain-related coping. Several studies examined the relationship between race and pain coping; however, no meta-analytic review has summarized this relationship or attempted to account for differences across studies. The goal of this meta-analytic review was to quantify race differences in the overall use of pain coping strategies as well as specific coping strategies. Relevant studies were identified using electronic databases, an ancestry search, and by contacting authors for unpublished data. Of 150 studies identified, 19 met inclusion criteria, resulting in 6,489 participants and 123 effect sizes. All of the included studies were conducted in the United States. Mean effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model. Compared with white individuals, black individuals used pain coping strategies more frequently overall (standardized mean difference [d] = .25, P < .01), with the largest differences observed for praying (d = .70) and catastrophizing (d = .40). White individuals engaged in task persistence more than black individuals (d = -.28). These results suggest that black individuals use coping strategies more frequently, specifically strategies associated with poorer pain outcomes. Future research should examine the extent to which the use of these strategies mediates race differences in the pain experience.
Perspective: Results of this meta-analysis examining race differences in pain-related coping indicate that, compared with white individuals, black individuals use coping strategies more frequently, specifically those involving praying and catastrophizing. These differences in coping may help to explain race differences in the pain experience.
期刊介绍：
The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
