4.4 Article

Prevalence and Impact of Pain in Adults Aging With a Physical Disability Comparison to a US General Population Sample

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 307-315

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31829e9bca

关键词

PROMIS; aging; pain; disability

资金

  1. Department of Education, NIDRR [H133B080024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To describe rates of pain and pain interference in a large sample of adults aging with long-standing physical disabilities, relative to a normative US population sample. Methods: Self-report survey data was collected for a sample of 1877 individuals with spinal cord injury, neuromuscular disease, postpolio syndrome, or multiple sclerosis. Rates of pain severity and pain interference in these samples were then compared with those taken from a large normative sample (> 20,000) collected through the NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Results: Individuals with long-standing physical disabilities reported higher levels of pain and pain interference across the lifespan as compared with individuals in the normative sample. In general, individuals with disability did not experience an age-related decrease in pain and pain impact in contrast to those in the normative sample. For 3 disability groups (neuromuscular disease, postpolio syndrome, and multiple sclerosis), pain interference remained elevated and significantly higher than national norms in the postretirement period (ie, age 65 to 74). Discussion: Results from this study provide a large scale data on prevalence rates of pain and pain interference in this population. Findings underscore the prevalence and impact of pain in persons with disabilities and suggest that individuals with disability may not experience the same degree of decrease in pain interference in later life that is typical of the US population. Those aging with disability may be especially at risk for pain-related impairment in later life.

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

4.4
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