ABSTRACT
Previous literature on race/ethnicity and pain has rarely included all major U.S. racial groups or examined the sensitivity of findings to different pain operationalizations. Using data from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Surveys on adults 18+ (N=273,972), we calculate the weighted prevalence of six definitions of pain to provide a detailed description of chronic pain in White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and multiracial groups. We also estimate logistic models to obtain relative disparities, including net of demographic and socioeconomic (SES) factors; finally, we calculate average predicted probabilities to show prevalence disparities in absolute terms. We find that Asian Americans have the lowest pain prevalence across all pain definitions or model specifications. In contrast, Native American and multiracial adults have the highest pain prevalence. This pain excess is due to the lower SES among Native Americans but remains significant and unexplained among multiracial adults. Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics fall in between. In this trio, Hispanics have the lowest prevalence, an advantage not attributable to immigrant status or SES. While most prior research focused on Black-White comparisons, these two groups differ relatively little. Blacks report lower prevalence of less severe pain definitions than Whites, but higher prevalence of severe pain. Net of SES, however, Blacks have significantly lower pain across all definitions. Overall, racial disparities are larger than previously recognized once all major racial groups are included, and these disparities are largely consistent across different operationalizations of pain.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AG065351 (PI: Grol-Prokopczyk), and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Insight Grant (PI: Zajacova). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or SSHRC.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The data are publicly-available and de-identified. As such, there are no human subjects and IRB exemption or approval is not necessary.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos