Search

The most widely accepted definition of pain considers it a sensory and emotional experience associated with potential or actual physical harm. However, research tends to generalize findings from predominantly European American samples thereby assuming universality across cultures. Because of the high prevalence of pain within the AI group, it is important to consider whether their conceptualization of pain is similar to the universal definition. To accomplish this aim, a semi-structured interview was conducted with 152 AIs (primarily Southern Plains and eastern Oklahoma tribes) and 150 NHWs. Both groups were asked questions including what words describe hurtful experiences, the purpose of painful experiences, individual and culture-specific meanings of pain, and what constituted the opposite of pain. Many similarities were found between groups as well as differences. For example, NHWs used the word pain more often to describe physically hurtful experiences and were more likely to consider pain to be a signal or warning of an abnormality or pathology. By contrast, only AIs reported culture-specific meanings of pain, such as references to AI rituals or ceremonies. These observed differences are attenuated by small effect sizes. These findings are important to consider when hypothesizing the differences in pain among cultural groups.

Adverse life events (ALEs) are a risk factor for chronic pain; however, mechanisms underlying this association are not understood. This study examined whether cumulative ALE exposure impairs endogenous inhibition of pain (assessed from pain report) and spinal nociception (assessed from nociceptive flexion reflex; NFR) in healthy, pain-free Native Americans (n = 124) and non-Hispanic Whites (n = 129) during a conditioned pain modulation (CPM) task. Cumulative ALE exposure was assessed prior to testing by summing the number of potentially traumatic events experienced by each participant across their lifespan. Multilevel modeling found that ALEs were associated with NFR modulation during the CPM task even after controlling for general health, body mass index, sex, age, blood pressure, sleep quality, stimulation intensity, stimulus number, perceived stress, and psychological distress. Low exposure to ALEs was associated with NFR inhibition, whereas high exposure to ALEs was associated with NFR facilitation. By contrast, pain perception was inhibited during the CPM task regardless of the level of ALE exposure. Race/ethnicity did not moderate these results. Thus, ALEs may be pronociceptive for both Native Americans and non-Hispanic Whites by impairing descending inhibition of spinal nociception. This could contribute to a chronic pain risk phenotype involving latent spinal sensitization. PERSPECTIVE: This study found that adverse life events were associated with impaired descending inhibition of spinal nociception in a sample of Native Americans and non-Hispanic Whites. These findings expand on previous research linking adversity to chronic pain risk by identifying a proximate physiological mechanism for this association., (Copyright © 2021 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Native Americans (NAs) have a higher prevalence of chronic pain than other U.S. racial/ethnic groups, but there have been few attempts to understand the mechanisms of this pain disparity. This study used a comprehensive battery of laboratory tasks to assess peripheral fiber function (cool/warm detection thresholds), pain sensitivity (eg, thresholds/tolerances), central sensitization (eg, temporal summation), and pain inhibition (conditioned pain modulation) in healthy, pain-free adults (N = 155 NAs, N = 150 non-Hispanic Whites [NHWs]). Multiple pain stimulus modalities were used (eg, cold, heat, pressure, ischemic, and electric), and subjective (eg, pain ratings and pain tolerance) and physiological (eg, nociceptive flexion reflex) outcomes were measured. There were no group differences on any measure, except that NAs had lower cold-pressor pain thresholds and tolerances, indicating greater pain sensitivity than NHWs. These findings suggest that there are no group differences between healthy NAs and NHWs on peripheral fiber function, central sensitization, or central pain inhibition, but NAs may have greater sensitivity to cold pain. Future studies are needed to examine potential within-group factors that might contribute to NA pain risk.