Neighborhood disadvantage and adolescent behavior problems: how do inferences differ across definitions of disadvantage?

BACKGROUND: Various definitions of neighborhood disadvantage (ND) exist, yet evidence is lacking on how ND operationalization may impact scientific inference. METHODS: We used data from wave 6 of the Fragile Families study, excluding those without census tract or behavior problem data (n = 2363). Outcomes included five scales from the caregiver-reported Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and a self-reported delinquency scale. ND was defined in four ways: (1) a modified Sampson definition which included four neighborhood poverty variables; (2) a poverty-only definition which only included percent households below poverty; (3) an overextended definition which added a mediator between the ND-behavior relationship, and (4) an expanded definition which added six additional ND variables to the modified Sampson definition. Using effect estimates from generalized linear models, differences were calculated using percent change-in-estimate, with the modified Sampson as the referent. RESULTS: Effect estimates were similar for the modified Sampson and expanded definitions (< 5% difference). The poverty-only definition differed from the modified Sampson unsystematically. Estimates for the overextended definition were consistently larger compared to modified Sampson (10-37% greater). The expanded and modified Sampson definitions produced similar results. CONCLUSION: Poverty-only and overextended ND definitions should be interpreted with caution.

The Relationship Between Pain and Psychological Distress During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is Social Technology Use Protective?

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting shelter-in-place orders have profoundly changed the everyday social environment. This study examines the relationship between pain and psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and loneliness) among U.S. adults ages 54 and older during the pandemic. We also test whether use of technology for social purposes moderates the association between pain severity and psychological distress. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data on 1,014 adults ages 54 and older (pain free, n = 637; mild pain, n = 106; moderate pain, n = 227; and severe pain, n = 64) from the 2020 Health and Retirement Study COVID-19 Project (Early, Version 1.0), we conducted regression analyses to test the association between pain severity and psychological outcomes and to assess social technology use frequency as a moderator. RESULTS: Compared with their pain-free peers, participants with mild-to-moderate pain reported more depressive symptoms and greater loneliness; those with severe pain reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Social technology use was associated with lower levels of depression and loneliness. However, interaction analyses show that social technology use predicted an increase in depression for individuals with pain but a decrease in depression among pain-free individuals. For anxiety and loneliness, no significant effects of social technology use were observed. CONCLUSION: Older adults with pain are at high risk of depression, anxiety, and loneliness during the pandemic. Although social technologies have become a common alternative to face-to-face interactions during the COVID-19 crisis, and overall they can provide mental health benefits, our results suggest that social technologies can be detrimental to psychological well-being among people with pain. These findings can inform technology-based interventions aiming to promote well-being among older adults with pain.

Pain Trends Among American Adults, 2002-2018: Patterns, Disparities, and Correlates.

Determining long-term trends in chronic pain prevalence is critical for evaluating and shaping U.S. health policies, but little research has examined such trends. This study (1) provides estimates of pain trends among U.S. adults across major population groups; (2) tests whether sociodemographic disparities in pain have widened or narrowed over time; and (3) examines socioeconomic, behavioral, psychological, and medical correlates of pain trends. Regression and decomposition analyses of joint, low back, neck, facial/jaw pain, and headache/migraine using the 2002-2018 National Health Interview Survey for adults aged 25-84 (N = 441,707) assess the trends and their correlates. We find extensive escalation of pain prevalence in all population subgroups: overall, reports of pain in at least one site increased by 10%, representing an additional 10.5 million adults experiencing pain. Socioeconomic disparities in pain are widening over time, and psychological distress and health behaviors are among the salient correlates of the trends. This study thus comprehensively documents rising pain prevalence among Americans across the adult life span and highlights socioeconomic, behavioral, and psychological factors as important correlates of the trends. Chronic pain is an important dimension of population health, and demographic research should include it when studying health and health disparities.

Comparing South Korean and US self-rated health using anchoring vignettes.

PURPOSE: This study compares the self-rated health (SRH) of South Korean and US respondents, using anchoring vignettes to adjust for reporting heterogeneity, i.e., cross-national differences in use of response categories. METHODS: Study participants, ages 20 to 59, were recruited from online survey panels retained by Embrain in Korea (N = 1170) and the US (N = 1033). In the analyses, we first examined the two key measurement assumptions of the anchoring vignette method. Response consistency was examined by regressing SRH on vignette ratings and EQ-5D, and was satisfied when the relationship between SRH and vignette ratings was significant and positive. Vignette equivalence was assessed by examining whether respondents correctly rank-ordered vignettes by health status severity. We then compared estimates of the between-country difference in SRH from two models: a standard ordered probit regression, and a hierarchical ordered probit (Hopit) regression, which adjusted for cross-country differences in use of response categories. RESULTS: The anchoring vignettes satisfied both measurement assumptions. Results from the ordered probit regression indicated that Korean SRH was worse than that in the US. However, results from the Hopit regression revealed that Korean SRH was actually better than that in the US, after adjusting for Korean respondents' significantly higher intercategory thresholds (demarcating between "very bad" and "bad," "bad" and "fair," etc.). CONCLUSION: The apparently lower SRH of Korean vis-à-vis US respondents is an artifact of Koreans' higher standards for health-related response categories. After adjusting for these different standards, Korean SRH is revealed to be higher than US SRH.

Promises and Pitfalls of Anchoring Vignettes in Health Survey Research.

Data harmonization is a topic of growing importance to demographers, who increasingly conduct domestic or international comparative research. Many self-reported survey items cannot be directly compared across demographic groups or countries because these groups differ in how they use subjective response categories. Anchoring vignettes, already appearing in numerous surveys worldwide, promise to overcome this problem. However, many anchoring vignettes have not been formally evaluated for adherence to the key measurement assumptions of vignette equivalence and response consistency. This article tests these assumptions in some of the most widely fielded anchoring vignettes in the world: the health vignettes in the World Health Organization (WHO) Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE) and World Health Survey (WHS) (representing 10 countries; n = 52,388), as well as similar vignettes in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (n = 4,528). Findings are encouraging regarding adherence to response consistency, but reveal substantial violations of vignette equivalence both cross-nationally and across socioeconomic groups. That is, members of different sociocultural groups appear to interpret vignettes as depicting fundamentally different levels of health. The evaluated anchoring vignettes do not fulfill their promise of providing interpersonally comparable measures of health. Recommendations for improving future implementations of vignettes are discussed.

Does Pain Explain Trends in Disability? An Analysis of Middle-Aged and Older US Adults, 2002-2018.

OBJECTIVES: This article investigates the role of pain in disability trends in the United States, within the context of recent unfavorable disability trends and the concurrent rise in pain. METHOD: We conducted a two-part analysis using National Health Interview Survey data from 2002 to 2018 for US adults aged 45-84. First, we assessed how changes in the prevalence of five site-specific types of pain (headaches/migraines, joint, low back, neck, and facial/jaw pain) associate with disability trends. Second, we used self-reported causes of disability and examined whether there has been a change in the proportion of individuals who attribute their disability to one of five chronic or acute painful conditions. RESULTS: The five site-specific types of pain, individually and collectively, were significantly associated with increases in disability. If site-specific chronic pain had not increased during the study period, the trend for functional limitations would have been 40% lower, and that for activity limitations would have shown a slight decline instead of an increase. Attributions of functional limitations to painful conditions increased by 23% during the 2002-2018 period, representing an additional 9.82 million Americans experiencing pain-attributable disability. Arthritis/rheumatism, back/neck problems, and other musculoskeletal/connective conditions were the primary sources of pain-related disability. DISCUSSION: Our research provides the first systematic, national examination of how pain is contributing to disability trends in the United States. The findings have implications for disability reduction policies and shed light on the far-reaching consequences of pain for overall population health.

The geography of arthritis-attributable pain outcomes: a county-level spatial analysis.

ABSTRACT: Research on the geographic distribution of pain and arthritis outcomes, especially at the county level, is limited. This is a high-priority topic, however, given the heterogeneity of subnational and substate regions and the importance of county-level governments in shaping population health. Our study provides the most fine-grained picture to date of the geography of pain in the United States. Combining 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data with county-level data from the Census and other sources, we examined arthritis and arthritis-attributable joint pain, severe joint pain, and activity limitations in US counties. We used small area estimation to estimate county-level prevalences and spatial analyses to visualize and model these outcomes. Models considering spatial structures show superiority over nonspatial models. Counties with higher prevalences of arthritis and arthritis-related outcomes are mostly clustered in the Deep South and Appalachia, while severe consequences of arthritis are particularly common in counties in the Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Georgia, Florida, and Maine. Net of arthritis, county-level percentages of racial/ethnic minority groups are negatively associated with joint pain prevalence, but positively associated with severe joint pain prevalence. Severe joint pain is also more common in counties with more female individuals, separated or divorced residents, more high school noncompleters, fewer chiropractors, and higher opioid prescribing rates. Activity limitations are more common in counties with higher percentages of uninsured people. Our findings show that different spatial processes shape the distribution of different arthritis-related pain outcomes, which may inform local policies and programs to reduce the risk of arthritis and its consequences.

Is the relationship between chronic pain and mortality causal? A propensity score analysis.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain is a serious and prevalent condition that can affect many facets of life. However, uncertainty remains regarding the strength of the association between chronic pain and death and whether the association is causal. We investigate the pain-mortality relationship using data from 19,971 participants aged 51+ years in the 1998 wave of the U.S. Health and Retirement Study. Propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting are combined with Cox proportional hazards models to investigate whether exposure to chronic pain (moderate or severe) has a causal effect on mortality over a 20-year follow-up period. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Before adjusting for confounding, we find a strong association between chronic pain and mortality (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.26-1.38). After adjusting for confounding by sociodemographic and health variables using a range of propensity score methods, the estimated increase in mortality hazard caused by pain is more modest (5%-9%) and the results are often also compatible with no causal effect (95% CIs for HRs narrowly contain 1.0). This attenuation highlights the role of confounders of the pain-mortality relationship as potentially modifiable upstream risk factors for mortality. Posing the depressive symptoms variable as a mediator rather than a confounder of the pain-mortality relationship resulted in stronger evidence of a modest causal effect of pain on mortality (eg, HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.15). Future work is required to model exposure-confounder feedback loops and investigate the potentially cumulative causal effect of chronic pain at multiple time points on mortality.

Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

ABSTRACT: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Predictors of Multiwave Opioid Use Among Older American Adults.

Background and Objectives: Despite limited analgesic benefits, long-term opioid therapy (L-TOT) is common among older adults with chronic pain. Extended opioid use poses a threat to older adults as aging metabolisms retain opioids for longer, increasing the risk of injury, overdose, and other negative health outcomes. In contrast to predictors of general opioid use, predictors of L-TOT in older adults are not well documented. We aimed to identify such predictors using all available data on self-reported opioid use in the Health and Retirement Study. Research Design and Methods: Using 5 waves of data, respondents (N = 10,713) aged 51 and older were identified as reporting no opioid use (n = 8,621), a single wave of use (n = 1,410), or multiple waves of use (n = 682). We conducted a multinomial logistic regression to predict both single- and multiwave opioid use relative to no use. Demographic, socioeconomic, geographic, health, and health care-related factors were included in our model. Results: Multivariable findings show that, relative to nonusers, both single- and multiwave users were significantly more likely to be younger (relative risk ratio [RRR] = 1.33; RRR = 2.88); report lower household wealth (RRR = 1.47; RRR = 2.88); live in the U.S. Midwest (RRR = 1.29; RRR = 1.56), South (RRR = 1.34; RRR = 1.58), or West (RRR = 1.46; RRR = 2.34); experience interfering pain (RRR = 1.59; RRR = 3.39), back pain (RRR = 1.35; RRR = 1.53), or arthritic pain (RRR = 1.46; RRR = 2.32); and see the doctor frequently (RRR = 1.50; RRR = 2.02). Multiwave users were less likely to be Black (RRR = 0.69) or Hispanic (RRR = 0.45), and less likely to be never married (RRR = 0.52). Discussion and Implications: We identified demographic, socioeconomic, geographic, and health care-related predictors of chronic multiyear opioid use. Our focus on individuals taking opioids for this extended duration is novel. Differences in opioid use by geographic region and frequency of doctor visits particularly warrant attention from policy-makers and researchers. We make additional recommendations based on a sensitivity analysis limited to 2016-2020 data.

Chronic pain among U.S. sexual minority adults who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or "something else".

ABSTRACT: This study assesses chronic pain prevalence among sexual minority U.S. adults who self-identify as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or "something else," and examines the role of select covariates in the observed patterns. Analyses are based on 2013 to 2018 waves of the National Health Interview Survey, a leading cross-sectional survey representative of the U.S. population. General chronic pain and chronic pain in 3+ sites among adults aged 18 to 64 years (N = 134,266 and 95,675, respectively) are analyzed using robust Poisson regression and nonlinear decomposition; covariates include demographic, socioeconomic, healthcare, and psychological distress measures. We find large disparities for both pain outcomes. Americans who self-identify as bisexual or "something else" have the highest general chronic pain prevalence (23.7% and 27.0%, respectively), compared with 21.7% among gay/lesbian and 17.2% straight adults. For pain in 3+ sites, disparities are even larger: Age-adjusted prevalence is over twice as high among adults who self-identify as bisexual or "something else" and 50% higher among gay/lesbian, compared with straight adults. Psychological distress is the most salient correlate of the disparities, whereas socioeconomic status and healthcare variables explain only a modest proportion. Findings thus indicate that even in an era of meaningful social and political advances, sexual minority American adults have significantly more chronic pain than their straight counterparts. We call for data collection efforts to include information on perceived discrimination, prejudice, and stigma as potential key upstream factors that drive pain disparities among members of these minoritized groups.

Prevalence and correlates of prescription opioid use among US adults, 2019-2020.

This study estimates the prevalence of prescription opioid use (POU) in the United States (US) in 2019-2020, both in the general population and specifically among adults with pain. It also identifies key geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic correlates of POU. Data were from the nationally-representative National Health Interview Survey 2019 and 2020 (N = 52,617). We estimated POU prevalence in the prior 12 months among all adults (18+), adults with chronic pain (CP), and adults with high-impact chronic pain (HICP). Modified Poisson regression models estimated POU patterns across covariates. We found POU prevalence of 11.9% (95% CI 11.5, 12.3) in the general population, 29.3% (95% CI 28.2, 30.4) among those with CP, and 41.2% (95% CI 39.2, 43.2) among those with HICP. Findings from fully-adjusted models include the following: In the general population, POU prevalence declined about 9% from 2019 to 2020 (PR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85, 0.96). POU varied substantially across US geographic regions: It was significantly more common in the Midwest, West, and especially the South, where adults had 40% higher POU (PR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.26, 1.55) than in the Northeast. In contrast, there were no differences by rural/urban residence. In terms of individual characteristics, POU was lowest among immigrants and among the uninsured, and was highest among adults who were food insecure and/or not employed. These findings suggest that prescription opioid use remains high among American adults, especially those with pain. Geographic patterns suggest systemic differences in therapeutic regimes across regions but not rurality, while patterns across social characteristics highlight the complex, opposing effects of limited access to care and socioeconomic precarity. Against the backdrop of continuing debates about benefits and risks of opioid analgesics, this study identifies and invites further research about geographic regions and social groups with particularly high or low prescription opioid use.

A global comparative study of wealth-pain gradients: Investigating individual- and country-level associations.

Pain is a significant yet underappreciated dimension of population health. Its associations with individual- and country-level wealth are not well characterized using global data. We estimate both individual- and country-level wealth inequalities in pain in 51 countries by combining data from the World Health Organization's World Health Survey with country-level contextual data. Our research concentrates on three questions: 1) Are inequalities in pain by individual-level wealth observed in countries worldwide? 2) Does country-level wealth also relate to pain prevalence? 3) Can variations in pain reporting also be explained by country-level contextual factors, such as income inequality? Analytical steps include logistic regressions conducted for separate countries, and multilevel models with random wealth slopes and resultant predicted probabilities using a dataset that pools information across countries. Findings show individual-level wealth negatively predicts pain almost universally, but the association strength differs across countries. Country-level contextual factors do not explain away these associations. Pain is generally less prevalent in wealthier countries, but the exact nature of the association between country-level wealth and pain depends on the moderating influence of country-level income inequality, measured by the Gini index. The lower the income inequality, the more likely it is that poor countries experience the highest and rich countries the lowest prevalence of pain. In contrast, the higher the income inequality, the more nonlinear the association between country-level wealth and pain reporting such that the highest prevalence is seen in highly nonegalitarian middle-income countries. Our findings help to characterize the global distribution of pain and pain inequalities, and to identify national-level factors that shape pain inequalities.

Educational disparities in joint pain within and across US states: do macro sociopolitical contexts matter?

ABSTRACT: Despite growing recognition of the importance of social, economic, and political contexts for population health and health inequalities, research on pain disparities relies heavily on individual-level data, while neglecting overarching macrolevel factors such as state-level policies and characteristics. Focusing on moderate or severe arthritis-attributable joint pain-a common form of pain that considerably harms individuals' quality of life-we (1) compared joint pain prevalence across US states; (2) estimated educational disparities in joint pain across states; and (3) assessed whether state sociopolitical contexts help explain these 2 forms of cross-state variation. We linked individual-level data on 407,938 adults (ages 25-80 years) from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System with state-level data on 6 measures (eg, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP], Earned Income Tax Credit, Gini index, and social cohesion index). We conducted multilevel logistic regressions to identify predictors of joint pain and inequalities therein. Prevalence of joint pain varies strikingly across US states: the age-adjusted prevalence ranges from 6.9% in Minnesota to 23.1% in West Virginia. Educational gradients in joint pain exist in all states but vary substantially in magnitude, primarily due to variation in pain prevalence among the least educated. At all education levels, residents of states with greater educational disparities in pain are at a substantially higher risk of pain than peers in states with lower educational disparities. More generous SNAP programs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.925; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.963-0.957) and higher social cohesion (OR = 0.819; 95% CI: 0.748-0.896) predict lower overall pain prevalence, and state-level Gini predicts higher pain disparities by education.

Self-Reported Pain Treatment Practices Among U.S. and Canadian Adults: Findings From a Population Survey.

Background and Objectives: Pain treatments and their efficacy have been studied extensively. Yet surprisingly little is known about the types of treatments, and combinations of treatments, that community-dwelling adults use to manage pain, as well as how treatment types are associated with individual characteristics and national-level context. To fill this gap, we evaluated self-reported pain treatment types among community-dwelling adults in the United States and Canada. We also assessed how treatment types correlate with individuals' pain levels, sociodemographic characteristics, and country of residence, and identified unique clusters of adults in terms of treatment combinations. Research Design and Methods: We used the 2020 "Recovery and Resilience" United States-Canada general online survey with 2 041 U.S. and 2 072 Canadian community-dwelling adults. Respondents selected up to 10 pain treatment options including medication, physical therapy, exercise, etc., and an open-ended item was available for self-report of any additional treatments. Data were analyzed using descriptive, regression-based, and latent class analyses. Results: Over-the-counter (OTC) medication was reported most frequently (by 55% of respondents, 95% CI 53%-56%), followed by "just living with pain" (41%, 95% CI 40%-43%) and exercise (40%, 95% CI 38%-41%). The modal response (29%) to the open-ended item was cannabis use. Pain was the most salient correlate, predicting a greater frequency of all pain treatments. Country differences were generally small; a notable exception was alcohol use, which was reported twice as often among U.S. versus Canadian adults. Individuals were grouped into 5 distinct clusters: 2 groups relied predominantly on medication (prescription or OTC), another favored exercise and other self-care approaches, one included adults "just living with" pain, and the cluster with the highest pain levels employed all modalities heavily. Discussion and Implications: Our findings provide new insights into recent pain treatment strategies among North American adults and identify population subgroups with potentially unmet need for more adaptive and effective pain management.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

Health and health behaviors in China: Anomalies in the SES-health gradient?

Objectives: Fundamental Cause Theory (FCT) predicts that higher socioeconomic status (SES) leads to better health outcomes, through mechanisms including health-promoting behaviors. Most studies supporting FCT use data from Western countries. However, limited empirical studies from China, as well as theoretical considerations suggested by China's unique history and culture, raise questions about the generalizability of FCT to the Chinese context. This study explores whether the associations between SES, health behaviors, and health status in Western countries are also observed in China, and to what extent behavioral risk factors explain socioeconomic disparities in Chinese health. Data and method: Using data on adults age 45+ from the nationally-representative 2015 China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS; n = 14,420), we conduct regressions of multiple health outcomes (self-rated health, disease count, and several common chronic conditions) on demographic characteristics, SES (measured via education and wealth), and behavioral risk factors (smoking, high-frequency drinking, and overweight). To assess whether behavioral risk factors mediate the SES-health association, we use the Karlson, Holm and Breen (KHB) mediation analysis method. Results: Supporting FCT, both education and wealth predict higher self-rated health and lower risk of arthritis. However, inconsistent with FCT, neither education nor wealth predict disease count, diabetes, or hypertension; education shows some positive association with cardiovascular disease; and higher SES is strongly associated with higher risk of dyslipidemia. Prevalence of smoking and high-frequency drinking are flat by wealth and inversely U-shaped by education, while overweight is somewhat concentrated in the highest SES groups. Results of mediation analyses show both suppression and mediation effects. Conclusion: High prevalence of behavioral risk factors across SES groups appears to damage health in much of the Chinese population, and thus attenuates social gradients in health. A broader range of cultural, historical, and political factors should be incorporated into FCT's theoretical framework, particularly in non-Western contexts.

Beyond Black vs White: racial/ethnic disparities in chronic pain including Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and multiracial US adults.

ABSTRACT: Previous literature on race/ethnicity and pain has rarely included all major US racial groups or examined the sensitivity of findings to different pain operationalizations. Using data from the 2010 to 2018 National Health Interview Surveys on adults 18 years or older (N = 273,972), we calculated the weighted prevalence of 6 definitions of pain to provide a detailed description of chronic pain in White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and multiracial groups. We also estimated modified Poisson models to obtain relative disparities, net of demographic and socioeconomic (SES) factors including educational attainment, family income, and home ownership; finally, we calculated average predicted probabilities to show prevalence disparities in absolute terms. We found that Asian Americans showed the lowest pain prevalence across all pain definitions and model specifications. By contrast, Native American and multiracial adults had the highest pain prevalence. This excess pain was due to the lower SES among Native Americans but remained significant and unexplained among multiracial adults. The pain prevalence in White, Black, and Hispanic adults fell in between the 2 extremes. In this trio, Hispanics showed the lowest prevalence, an advantage not attributable to immigrant status or SES. Although most previous research focuses on Black-White comparisons, these 2 groups differ relatively little. Blacks report lower prevalence of less severe pain definitions than Whites but slightly higher prevalence of severe pain. Net of SES, however, Blacks experienced 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.

The Geography of Pain in the United States and Canada.

Pain epidemiologists have, thus far, devoted scant attention to geospatial analyses of pain.  Both cross-national and, especially, subnational variation in pain have been understudied, even though geographic comparisons could shed light on social factors that increase or mitigate pain. This study presents the first comparative analysis of pain in the U.S. and Canada, comparing the countries in aggregate, while also analyzing variation across states and provinces. Analyses are based on cross-sectional data collected in 2020 from U.S. and Canadian adults 18 years and older (N = 4,113). The focal pain measure is a product of pain frequency and pain interference. We use decomposition and regression analyses to link socioeconomic characteristics and pain, and inverse-distance weighting spatial interpolation to map pain levels. We find significantly and substantially higher pain in the U.S. than in Canada. The difference is partly linked to Americans' worse economic conditions. Additionally, we find significant pain variability within the U.S. and Canada. U.S. states in the Deep South, Appalachia, and parts of the West stand out as pain 'hotspots' with particularly high pain levels. Overall, our findings identify areas with a high need for pain prevention and management; they also urge further scholarship on geographic factors as important covariates in population pain. PERSPECTIVE: This study documents the high pain burden in the U.S. versus Canada, and points to states in the Deep South, Appalachia, and parts of the West as having particularly high pain burden. The findings identify geographic areas with a high need for pain prevention and management.