4.6 Article

A population-based survey of chronic pain and its treatment with prescription drugs

Journal

PAIN
Volume 152, Issue 6, Pages 1249-1255

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.12.036

Keywords

Epidemiology; Opioid analgesics; Risk factors; Pain measurement

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chronic pain is a common reason for medical visits, but prevalence estimates vary between studies and have rarely included drug treatment data. This study aimed to examine characteristics of chronic pain and its relation to demographic and health factors, and factors associated with treatment of pain with opioid analgesics. A chronic pain module was added to the 2007 Kansas Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (response rate = 61%). Data on prevalence, duration, frequency, and severity of chronic pain, demographics, and health were collected from a representative sample of 4090 adults 18 years and older by telephone. Logistic regression was used to examine the association of both chronic pain and opioid use with demographic and health factors. Chronic pain was reported by 26.0% of the participants and was associated with activity limitations (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.6, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.8-4.5), arthritis (AOR = 3.3, 95% CI 2.6-4.0), poor mental health (AOR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.4-2.8), poor overall health (AOR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.5-2.5), and obesity (AOR = 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.0). Of the 33.4% of people with pain who use prescription pain medication, 45.7% took opioids, including 36.7% of those with mild pain. Chronic pain affects a quarter of adults in Kansas and is associated with poor health. Opioid analgesics are the mainstay of prescribed pharmacotherapy in this group, even among those reporting mild pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for the Study of Pain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available