4.6 Article

The burden of chronic pain: A cross-sectional survey focussing on diseases, immigration, and opioid use

期刊

PAIN
卷 153, 期 12, 页码 2332-2338

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.07.023

关键词

Chronic pain; Epidemiology; Immigration; Pain management; Regression analysis

资金

  1. Trygfonden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic pain is currently considered a public health problem with high costs to the individual and society. To improve prevention and treatment of chronic pain, epidemiologic studies are mandatory for assessing chronic pain. The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of chronic pain in the adult Danish population and to analyze associated factors such as diseases, immigration, and opioid use. This cross-sectional survey combines individual-based information from the Danish Health Survey (2010) and official Danish health and socioeconomic, individual-based registers. The simple random sample consisted of 25000 individuals (>= 16 years old) living in Denmark. In all, 60.7% completed a mailed or online questionnaire. Associations were examined with multiple logistic regression analysis. The study population consisted of 14925 individuals in whom a high prevalence of chronic pain (26.8%, 95% confidence interval: 26.1 to 27.5) and a high prevalence of opioid consumption (4.5%) were observed. Other aspects of particular note: (1) a higher prevalence of chronic pain occurred among individuals with cardiovascular and chronic pulmonary diseases than among individuals with cancer; and (2) individuals with a non-Western background reported a higher pain prevalence, higher pain intensities, and more widespread pain than individuals with Danish background; however, opioids were more frequently used by native Danes. The prevalence of chronic pain as well as opioid use in Denmark are alarmingly high, and the relevance of opioid consumption is unknown. (c) 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据