Search

Laura D Wandner,1,2 Brenda T Fenton,3 Joseph L Goulet,3,4 Constance M Carroll,5 Alicia Heapy,3,6 Diana M Higgins,7,8 Matthew J Bair,9– 11 Friedhelm Sandbrink,12,13 Robert D Kerns3,6,14,15 1National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA; 3Pain Research, Informatics, Multimorbidities and Education (PRIME) Center, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA; 4Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; 5Yale University AIDS Program, New Haven, CT, USA; 6Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; 7VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; 8Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; 9VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 10Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 11Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 12Department of Neurology, VA Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA; 13Department of Neurology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA; 14Department of Neurology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; 15Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USACorrespondence: Laura D WandnerNational Institutes of Health (NIH), 10 Center Dr, Bethesda, MD 20814, USAEmail Laura.Wandner@nih.govObjective: Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation is used to treat chronic pain, including painful musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This study examined the characteristics and outcomes of veterans receiving SCSs in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities.Methods: The sample was drawn from the MSD Cohort and limited to three MSDs with the highest number of implants (N=815,475). There were 1490 veterans with these conditions who received SCS implants from 2000 to 2012, of which 95% (n=1414) had pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) data both pre- and post-implant.Results: Veterans who were 35– 44 years old, White, and married reported higher pain NRS ratings, had comorbid inclusion diagnoses, had no medical comorbidities, had a BMI 25– 29.9, or had a depressive disorder diagnosis were more likely to receive an SCS. Veterans 55+ years old or with an alcohol or substance use disorder were less likely to receive an SCS. Over 90% of those receiving an SCS were prescribed opioids in the year prior to implant. Veterans who had a presurgical pain score ≥ 4 had a clinically meaningful decrease in their pain score in the year following their 90-day recovery period (Day 91– 456) greater than expected by chance alone. Similarly, there was a significant decrease in the percent of veterans receiving opioid therapy (92.4% vs 86.6%, p< 0.0001) and a significant overall decrease in opioid dose [morphine equivalent dose per day (MEDD) =26.48 vs MEDD=22.59, p< 0.0003].Conclusion: Results offer evidence of benefit for some veterans with the examined conditions. Given known risks of opioid therapy, the reduction is an important potential benefit of SCS implants.Keywords: spinal cord stimulator, musculoskeletal disorders, veterans, outcomes, opioids

Laura D Wandner,1 Calia A Torres,2 Emily J Bartley,1 Steven Z George,3 Michael E Robinson1 1Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, 3Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Objectives: Pain is often poorly managed, highlighting the need to better understand and treat patients' pain. Research suggests that pain is assessed and treated differently depending on patient sex, race, and/or age. Perspective-taking, whereby one envisions the perspective of another, has been found to reduce racial disparities in pain management. This study used virtual human (VH) technology to examine whether a perspective-taking intervention impacts pain management decisions. Methods: Ninety-six participants were randomized to an online treatment or control group and viewed 16 video clips of VHs with standardized levels of pain. Participants provided ratings on the VHs' pain intensity and their willingness to administer opioids to them. The intervention group received a brief perspective-taking intervention that consisted of having participants imagine how the patient's suffering could affect his/her life, whereas the control group was asked to wait for the next VH videos to load. A LENS model analysis was used to investigate both group level (nomothetic) and individual level (idiographic) decision policies. A LENS model of analysis is typically used as an analog method for capturing how groups of people and individuals use information in their environment to form judgments. Results: Nomothetic results found that participants rated pain higher and were more likely to prescribe opioids to VHs postintervention, irrespective of group. Idiographic results, however, found that the use of cues to make pain management decisions was mitigated by the perspective-taking group. The participants in the perspective-taking group were more likely to think about pain and the patients' perspective during the intervention, while control participants were more likely to reflect on the VHs' sex, race, or age. Conclusion: A brief intervention may alter participants' pain management decisions. These results indicate that a brief intervention might be an initial step toward aligning observers' pain management ratings with those of the patient. Future research is needed to replicate findings in a health care population. Keywords: pain management, perspective taking, virtual technology

Calia A Torres,1 Emily J Bartley,1 Laura D Wandner,1 Ashraf F Alqudah,2 Adam T Hirsh,3 Michael E Robinson11Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; 2Department of Psychology, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; 3Department of Psychology, Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USAPurpose: Studies in the United States have found that patients' sex, race, and age influence the pain assessment and treatment decisions of laypeople and medical professionals. However, there is limited research as to whether people of other nationalities make pain management decisions differently based on demographic characteristics. Therefore, the purpose of the following study was to compare pain assessment and treatment decisions of undergraduate students in Jordan and the United States as a preliminary examination of nationality as a potential proxy for cultural differences in pain decisions.Methods: Virtual human (VH) technology was used to examine the influences of patients' sex (male or female), race (light-skinned or dark-skinned), and age (younger or older) on students' pain management decisions. Seventy-five American and 104 Jordanian undergraduate students participated in this web-based study.Results: American and Jordanian students rated pain intensity higher in females and older adults and were more likely to recommend medical help to these groups, relative to males and younger adults. Furthermore, Jordanian participants rated pain intensity higher and were more likely to recommend medical help for all patient demographic groups (ie, sex, race, age) than American participants.Conclusion: This is the first cross-national study that compares pain decisions between undergraduate students. The results suggest that sex, race, and age cues are used in pain assessment and treatment by both Americans and Jordanians, with Jordanians more likely to rate pain higher and recommend medical help to patients. Additional research is needed to determine the cultural determinants of these differences.Keywords: pain management, pain disparities, nationality, stereotypes, biases

Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states., Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process., Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories., Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care., Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA., Competing Interests: Giulia Bova has nothing to disclose. Anthony Domenichiello has nothing to disclose. Janelle Letzen has nothing to disclose. Daniela C. Rosenberger has nothing to disclose. Andrew Siddons has nothing to disclose. Ulrike Kaiser is the principal investigator of VAPAIN. Adam Anicich has nothing to disclose. Ralf Baron reports grants from EU Projects: „Europain“ (115,007). DOLORisk (633,491). IMI Paincare (777,500). Ðerman Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): Verbundprojekt: Frühdetektion von Schmerzchronifizierung (NoChro) (13GW0338C). Ðerman Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (01EM0903). Ðfizer Pharma GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme GmbH, Grünenthal GmbH, Mundipharma Research GmbH und Co. KG., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., Zambon GmbH, Bayer AG, Sanofi Aventis GmbHÐ personal fees from Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme GmbH, Grünenthal GmbH, Mundipharma, Lilly GmbH, Desitin Arzneimittel GmbH, Teva GmbH, Bayer AG, MSD GmbH, Seqirus Australia Pty. Ltd, Novartis Pharma GmbH, TAD Pharma GmbH, Grünenthal SA Portugal, Grünen¬thal Pharma AG Schweiz, Grünenthal B.V. Niederlande, Evapharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG Schweiz, Ology Medical Education Netherlands, Ever Pharma GmbH, Amicus Therapeutics GmbH, Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH, Chiesi GmbH, Stada Mena DWC LLC Dubai, Hexal AG, Viatris, personal fees from Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme GmbH, Grünenthal GmbH, Lilly, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogenidec, AstraZeneca GmbH, Daiichi Sankyo, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals S.A., Seqirus Australia Pty. Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe Niederlande, Teva GmbH, Genentech, Mundipharma International Ltd. UK, Galapagos NV, Kyowa Kirin GmbH, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc., Biotest AG, Celgene GmbH, Desitin Arzneimittel GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA, Theranexus DSV CEA Frankreich, Abbott Products Operations AG Schweiz, Bayer AG, Grünenthal Pharma AG Schweiz, Akcea Therapeutics Germany GmbH, Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Air Liquide Sante International Frankreich, Alnylam Germany GmbH, Lateral Pharma Pty Ltd, Hexal AG, Angelini, Janssen, SIMR Biotech Pty Ltd Australien, Confo Therapeutics N. V. Belgium, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Neumentum Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Switzerland, AlgoTherapeutix SAS France, Nanobiotix SA France, AmacaThera Inc. Canada, outside the submitted work. Judy Birch has nothing to disclose. Didier Bouhassira reports personal fees from Grunenthal, personal fees from Bayer, outside the submitted work. George Casey has nothing to disclose. Katie Golden has nothing to disclose. Smriti Iyengar has nothing to disclose. Barbara Karp has nothing to disclose. Hiltrud Liedgens has nothing to disclose. Winfried Meissner reports grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Grünenthal, grants from Mundipharma, grants from Pfizer, personal fees from Ethypharm, personal fees from Kyowa, personal fees from Spectrum Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Kate Nicholson has no conflicts or disclosures. She is employed by the National Pain Advocacy Center, which takes no industry funding and advocates for the health and rights of people living with pain. She was a member on the patient Advisory Committee for this project and received an honorarium for attending early organizational strategic planning for the project. She also received support for attending the European Pain Federation (EFIC) conference to present on concepts from this project. Leah Pogorzala has nothing to disclose. Deidre Ryan has nothing to disclose. Rolf-Detlef Treede reports grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative EU and EFPIA, during the conduct of the study; grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grants from Esteve, TEVA, personal fees from Bayer, Grünenthal, GSK, Merz, Saluda Medical, Sanofi, Cered, and Vertex outside the submitted work. Peter Tugwell has nothing to disclose. Dennis Turk has received in the past 5 years research grants and contracts from the US Food and Drug Administration and the US National Institutes of Health, U.S. Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute, and US National Center for Occupational Health and Safety; received compensation for serving on advisory boards from Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. He received an honorarium from Wolters Kluwer in his role as editor-in-chief of The Clinical Journal of Pain. Katy Vincent reports grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (GA No. 777500) (Horizon 2020 and EFPIA), during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Bayer Healthcare (paid to institution), and personal fees from Reckitts (paid to institution), outside the submitted work. She received payment from Gedeon Richter for consultancy and talks, paid to the institution. Jan Vollert reports personal fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Embody Orthopaedics, personal fees from Casquar, outside the submitted work. Paula Williamson chairs the COMET Initiative Management Group. Sarah Woller has nothing to disclose. Ruth Zaslansky has nothing to disclose. Laura Wandner has nothing to disclose. Esther Pogatzki-Zahn reports grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) and the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 777500. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. All money goes to the institutions (WWU/UKM) EPZ is working for. EPZ received personal fees (money went to her institution) from Gruenenthal, Medtronic and Novartis unrelated to the current work. She received an honorarium in her role as debuty-editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Anaesthesiology., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Abstract: Chronic pain affects more than 50 million Americans. Treatments remain inadequate, in large part, because the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of chronic pain remain poorly understood. Pain biomarkers could potentially identify and measure biological pathways and phenotypical expressions that are altered by pain, provide insight into biological treatment targets, and help identify at-risk patients who might benefit from early intervention. Biomarkers are used to diagnose, track, and treat other diseases, but no validated clinical biomarkers exist yet for chronic pain. To address this problem, the National Institutes of Health Common Fund launched the Acute to Chronic Pain Signatures (A2CPS) program to evaluate candidate biomarkers, develop them into biosignatures, and discover novel biomarkers for chronification of pain after surgery. This article discusses candidate biomarkers identified by A2CPS for evaluation, including genomic, proteomic, metabolomic, lipidomic, neuroimaging, psychophysical, psychological, and behavioral measures. Acute to Chronic Pain Signatures will provide the most comprehensive investigation of biomarkers for the transition to chronic postsurgical pain undertaken to date. Data and analytic resources generatedby A2CPS will be shared with the scientific community in hopes that other investigators will extract valuable insights beyond A2CPS's initial findings. This article will review the identified biomarkers and rationale for including them, the current state of the science on biomarkers of the transition from acute to chronic pain, gaps in the literature, and how A2CPS will address these gaps., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

The National Institutes of Health and its independent advisors recognize the need to develop a strong pain research workforce and provide opportunities, particularly for clinicians, to pursue research careers. A survey was conducted to better understand the challenges facing the clinical pain research community. Respondents reported that time and funding to pursue research were the most critical factors either enabling or holding them back from a research career. Respondents who received some kind of formal research training or mentorship were more likely than those who did not to have federal research funding and to be at more advanced stages of their careers. The findings point to a need for all stakeholders in the pain research community to help formalize research training and provide funding or protected time to support the ambitions of aspiring researchers., Competing Interests: AS is employed by the company N4 Solutions, LLC. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Siddons, Wandner and Porter.)

Objective: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) HEAL Initiative is making data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) to maximize the value of the unprecedented federal investment in pain and opioid-use disorder research. This involves standardizing the use of common data elements (CDE) for clinical research., Methods: This work describes the process of the selection, processing, harmonization, and design constraints of CDE across a pain and opioid use disorder clinical trials network (NIH HEAL IMPOWR)., Results: The network alignment allowed for incorporation of newer data standards across the clinical trials. Specific advances included geographic coding (RUCA), deidentified patient identifiers (GUID), shareable clinical survey libraries (REDCap), and concept mapping to standardized concepts (UMLS)., Conclusions: While complex, harmonization across a network of chronic pain and opioid use disorder clinical trials with separate interventions can be optimized through use of CDEs and data standardization processes. This standardization process will support the robust secondary data analyses. Scaling this process could standardize CDE results across interventions or disease state which could help inform insurance companies or government organizations about coverage determinations. The development of the HEAL CDE program supports connecting isolated studies and solutions to each other, but the practical aspects may be challenging for some studies to implement. Leveraging tools and technology to simplify process and create ready to use resources may support wider adoption of consistent data standards., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an effective but underused treatment for high-impact chronic pain. Increased access to CBT-CP services for pain is of critical public health importance, particularly for rural and medically underserved populations who have limited access due to these services being concentrated in urban and high income areas. Making CBT-CP widely available and more affordable could reduce barriers to CBT-CP use., Methods: As part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term® (NIH HEAL) initiative, we designed and implemented a comparative effectiveness, 3-arm randomized control trial comparing remotely delivered telephonic/video and online CBT-CP-based services to usual care for patients with high-impact chronic pain. The RESOLVE trial is being conducted in 4 large integrated healthcare systems located in Minnesota, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington state and includes demographically diverse populations residing in urban and rural areas. The trial compares (1) an 8-session, one-on-one, professionally delivered telephonic/video CBT-CP program; and (2) a previously developed and tested 8-session online CBT-CP-based program (painTRAINER) to (3) usual care augmented by a written guide for chronic pain management. Participants are followed for 1 year post-allocation and are assessed at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-allocation. The primary outcome is minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥ 30% reduction) in pain severity (composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) assessed by a modified 11-item version of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include pain severity, pain intensity, and pain-related interference scores, quality of life measures, and patient global impression of change at 3, 6, and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness is assessed by incremental cost per additional patient with MCID in primary outcome and by cost per quality-adjusted life year achieved. Outcome assessment is blinded to group assignment., Discussion: This large-scale trial provides a unique opportunity to rigorously evaluate and compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 2 relatively low-cost and scalable modalities for providing CBT-CP-based treatments to persons with high-impact chronic pain, including those residing in rural and other medically underserved areas with limited access to these services., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04523714. This trial was registered on 24 August 2020., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Chronic pain has become a global health problem contributing to years lived with disability and reduced quality of life. Advances in the clinical management of chronic pain have been limited due to incomplete understanding of the multiple risk factors and molecular mechanisms that contribute to the development of chronic pain. The Acute to Chronic Pain Signatures (A2CPS) Program aims to characterize the predictive nature of biomarkers (brain imaging, high-throughput molecular screening techniques, or "omics," quantitative sensory testing, patient-reported outcome assessments and functional assessments) to identify individuals who will develop chronic pain following surgical intervention. The A2CPS is a multisite observational study investigating biomarkers and collective biosignatures (a combination of several individual biomarkers) that predict susceptibility or resilience to the development of chronic pain following knee arthroplasty and thoracic surgery. This manuscript provides an overview of data collection methods and procedures designed to standardize data collection across multiple clinical sites and institutions. Pain-related biomarkers are evaluated before surgery and up to 3 months after surgery for use as predictors of patient reported outcomes 6 months after surgery. The dataset from this prospective observational study will be available for researchers internal and external to the A2CPS Consortium to advance understanding of the transition from acute to chronic postsurgical pain., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Berardi, Frey-Law, Sluka, Bayman, Coffey, Ecklund, Vance, Dailey, Burns, Buvanendran, McCarthy, Jacobs, Zhou, Wixson, Balach, Brummett, Clauw, Colquhoun, Harte, Harris, Williams, Chang, Waljee, Fisch, Jepsen, Laurent, Olivier, Langefeld, Howard, Fiehn, Jacobs, Dakup, Qian, Swensen, Lokshin, Lindquist, Caffo, Crainiceanu, Zeger, Kahn, Wager, Taub, Ford, Sutherland and Wandner.)

The Helping to End Addiction Long-term Initiative (NIH HEAL Initiative) is an aggressive trans-NIH effort to speed solutions to stem the national opioid public health crisis, including through improved pain management. Toward this end, the NIH HEAL Initiative launched a common data element (CDE) program to ensure that NIH-funded clinical pain research studies would collect data in a standardized way. NIH HEAL Initiative staff launched a process to determine which pain-related core domains should be assessed by every clinical pain study and what questionnaires are required to ensure that the data is collected uniformly. The process involved multiple literature reviews, and consultation with experts inside and outside of NIH and the investigators conducting studies funded by the initiative. Ultimately, 9 core pain domains, and questionnaires to measure them, were chosen for studies examining acute pain and chronic pain in adults and pediatric populations. These were augmented with dozens of study-specific supplemental questionnaires to enable uniform data collection methods of outcomes outside of the core domains. The selection of core domains will ensure that valuable clinical pain data generated by the initiative is standardized, useable for secondary data analysis, and useful for guiding future research, clinical practice decisions, and policymaking. PERSPECTIVE: The NIH HEAL Initiative launched a common data element program to ensure that NIH-funded clinical pain research studies would collect data in a standardized way. Nine core pain domains and questionnaires to measure them were chosen for studies examining acute pain and chronic pain in adults and pediatric populations., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has reported that approximately 100 million Americans experience chronic pain. The IOM report on pain and the subsequent National Pain Strategy (NPS) issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have both noted the educational gaps regarding pain management and highlighted the pivotal role that psychology plays in the field of pain management. Fishman and colleagues (2013) emphasized the need for all providers involved in the study and practice of pain management to acquire a common fund of knowledge and proposed a comprehensive set of core competencies that would apply across multiple professions and specialty areas (e.g., anesthesiology, nursing, and psychology). These core competencies are meant to be tailored to allow each pain-related subspecialty to incorporate the factors and competencies unique to their discipline. To date, the terms pain psychology and pain psychologist are routinely used in public discourse to refer to psychologists practicing integrated, multimodal, and multidisciplinary pain care, but the field of psychology has not yet defined this emerging specialty. It is important for the discipline itself to define these terms and for psychologists to specify the competencies that would be expected of a clinician working as a pain psychologist. The current article represents an initial effort to define the core competencies necessary to fulfill the role of a pain psychologist working in the field of pain management. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of weight bias and demographic characteristics on the assessment of pediatric chronic pain. Weight status, race, and sex were manipulated in a series of virtual human (VH) digital images of children. Using a web-based platform, 96 undergraduate students with health care-related majors (e.g., Health Science, Nursing, Biology, and Pre-Medicine) read a clinical vignette and provided five ratings targeting the assessment of each VH child's pain. Students also answered a weight bias questionnaire. Group-based analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the VH child's weight and demographic cues, as well as greater weight bias on assessment ratings. Male and VH children with obesity were rated as more likely to avoid non-preferred activities due to pain compared to female and healthy weight children, respectively (both p < .001). The pain of VH children with obesity was rated as more likely to be influenced by psychological/behavioral issues compared to the pain of healthy weight VH children (p = .022). African American VH children were rated as experiencing significantly greater pain than Caucasian VH children (p = .037). As child weight increased, low weight bias participants felt more sympathy, while high weight bias participants felt less sympathy (p = .002). Also, low weight bias participants showed increased motivation to help, while high weight bias participants showed less motivation to help, as VH patient weight increased (p = .008). Child weight and evaluator weight bias may be influential in the assessment of pediatric pain. If supported by future research, results highlight the importance of training in evidence-based practice and education on weight bias for students majoring in health-care fields.

Objective: To examine black-white and Hispanic-white differences in total knee arthroplasty from 2001 to 2013 in a large cohort of patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system., Methods: Data were from the VA Musculoskeletal Disorders cohort, which includes data from electronic health records of more than 5.4 million veterans with musculoskeletal disorders diagnoses. We included white (non-Hispanic), black (non-Hispanic), and Hispanic (any race) veterans, age ≥50 years, with an OA diagnosis from 2001-2011 (n = 539,841). Veterans were followed from their first OA diagnosis until September 30, 2013. As a proxy for increased clinical severity, analyses were also conducted for a subsample restricted to those who saw an orthopedic or rheumatology specialist (n = 148,844). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to examine racial and ethnic differences in total knee arthroplasty by year of OA diagnosis, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, physical and mental diagnoses, and pain intensity scores., Results: We identified 12,087 total knee arthroplasty procedures in a sample of 473,170 white, 50,172 black, and 16,499 Hispanic veterans. In adjusted models examining black-white and Hispanic-white differences by year of OA diagnosis, total knee arthroplasty rates were lower for black than for white veterans diagnosed in all but 2 years. There were no Hispanic-white differences regardless of when diagnosis occurred. These patterns held in the specialty clinic subsample., Conclusion: Black-white differences in total knee arthroplasty appear to be persistent in the VA, even after controlling for potential clinical confounders., (© 2016, American College of Rheumatology.)

Disparities in health care associated with patients' gender, race, and age are well documented. Previous studies using virtual human (VH) technology have demonstrated that provider characteristics may play an important role in pain management decisions. However, these studies have largely emphasized group differences. The aims of this study were to examine dentists' and physicians' use of VH characteristics when making clinical judgments (i.e., cue use) and to identify provider characteristics associated with the magnitude of the impact of these cues (β-weights). Providers (N=152; 76 physicians, 76 dentists) viewed video vignettes of VH patients varying in gender (male/female), race (white/black), and age (younger/older). Participants rated VH patients' pain intensity and unpleasantness and then rated their own likelihood of administering non-opioid and opioid analgesics. Compared to physicians, dentists had significantly lower β-weights associated with VH age cues for all ratings (p<0.001; d>0.69). These effects varied by provider race and gender. For pain intensity, professional differences were present only among non-white providers. White providers had greater β-weights than non-white providers for pain unpleasantness but only among men. Provider differences regarding the use of VH age cues in non-opioid analgesic administration were present among all providers except non-white males. These findings highlight the interaction of patient and provider factors in driving clinical decision making. Although profession was related to use of VH age cues in pain-related clinical judgments, this relationship was modified by providers' personal characteristics. Additional research is needed to understand what aspects of professional training or practice may account for differences between physicians and dentists and what forms of continuing education may help to mitigate the disparities.

Objective: Evidence suggests that patient characteristics such as sex, race, and age influence the pain management decisions of health care providers. Although this signifies that patient demographics may be important determinants of health care decisions, pain-related care also may be impacted by the personal characteristics of the health care practitioner. However, the extent to which health care provider characteristics affect pain management decisions is unclear, underscoring the need for further research in this area., Methods: A total of 154 health care providers (77 physicians, 77 dentists) viewed video vignettes of virtual human (VH) patients varying in sex, race, and age. Practitioners provided computerized ratings of VH patients' pain intensity and unpleasantness, and also reported their willingness to prescribe non-opioid and opioid analgesics for each patient. Practitioner sex, race, age, and duration of professional experience were included as predictors to determine their impact on pain management decisions., Results: When assessing and treating pain, practitioner sex, race, age, and duration of experience were all significantly associated with pain management decisions. Further, the role of these characteristics differed across VH patient sex, race, and age., Conclusions: These findings suggest that pain assessment and treatment decisions may be impacted by the health care providers' demographic characteristics, effects which may contribute to pain management disparities. Future research is warranted to determine whether findings replicate in other health care disciplines and medical conditions, and identify other practitioner characteristics (e.g., culture) that may affect pain management decisions., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Unlabelled: Demographic characteristics have been found to influence pain management decisions, but limited focus has been placed on participants' reactions to feedback about their use of sex, race, or age to make these decisions. The present study aimed to examine the effects of providing feedback about the use of demographic cues to participants making pain management decisions. Participants (N = 107) viewed 32 virtual human patients with standardized levels of pain and provided ratings for virtual humans' pain intensity and their treatment decisions. Real-time lens model idiographic analyses determined participants' decision policies based on cues used. Participants were subsequently informed about cue use and completed feedback questions. Frequency analyses were conducted on responses to these questions. Between 7.4 and 89.4% of participants indicated awareness of their use of demographic or pain expression cues. Of those individuals, 26.9 to 55.5% believed this awareness would change their future clinical decisions, and 66.6 to 75.9% endorsed that their attitudes affect their imagined clinical practice. Between 66.6 and 79.1% of participants who used cues reported willingness to complete an online tutorial about pain across demographic groups. This study was novel because it provided participants feedback about their cue use. Most participants who used cues indicated willingness to participate in an online intervention, suggesting this technology's utility for modifying biases., Perspective: This is the first study to make individuals aware of whether a virtual human's sex, race, or age influences their decision making. Findings suggest that a majority of the individuals who were made aware of their use of demographic cues would be willing to participate in an online intervention., (Copyright © 2014 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly condition that often becomes chronic if not properly addressed. Recent research has shown that psychosocial symptoms can complicate LBP, necessitating more comprehensive screening measures., Aim: The present study investigated the role of psychosocial factors, including anger regulation, in pain and disability using a screening measure designed for LBP treated with physical therapy., Methods: One hundred three LBP patients initiating physical therapy completed an established screening measure to assess risk for developing chronic pain, and psychosocial measures assessing anger, depression, anxiety, fear-avoidance, and pain-catastrophizing before and after 4 weeks of treatment. Dependent variables were pain intensity, physical impairment, and patient-reported disability. Risk subgrouping based on anger and other psychosocial measures was examined using established screening methods and through using an empirical statistical approach., Results: Analyses revealed that risk subgroups differed according to corresponding levels of negative affect, as opposed to anger alone. General psychosocial distress also predicted disability posttreatment, but, interestingly, did not have a strong relationship to pain. Subsequent hierarchical agglomerative clustering procedures divided patients into overall high-distress and low-distress groups, with follow-up analyses revealing that the high-distress group had higher baseline measures of pain, disability, and impairment., Conclusions: Findings suggest that anger may be part of a generalized negative affect rather than a unique predictor when assessing risk for pain and disability in LBP treatment. Continued research in the area of screening for psychosocial prognostic indicators in LBP may ultimately guide treatment protocols in physical therapy for more comprehensive patient care.

Background: Previous literature indicates that biases exist in pain ratings. Healthcare professionals have been found to use patient demographic cues such as sex, race, and age when making decisions about pain treatment. However, there has been little research comparing healthcare professionals' (i.e., physicians and nurses) pain decision policies based on patient demographic cues., Methods: The current study used virtual human technology to examine the impact of patients' sex, race, and age on healthcare professionals' pain ratings. One hundred and ninety-three healthcare professionals (nurses and physicians) participated in this online study., Results: Healthcare professionals assessed virtual human patients who were male and African American to be experiencing greater pain intensity and were more willing to administer opioid analgesics to them than to their demographic counterparts. Similarly, nurses were more willing to administer opioids make treatment decisions than physicians. There was also a significant virtual human-sex by healthcare professional interaction for pain assessment and treatment decisions. The sex difference (male>female) was greater for nurses than physicians., Conclusions: Results replicated findings of previous studies using virtual human patients to assess the effect of sex, race, and age in pain decision-making. In addition, healthcare professionals' pain ratings differed depending on healthcare profession. Nurses were more likely to rate pain higher and be more willing to administer opioid analgesics than were physicians. Healthcare professionals rated male and African American virtual human patients as having higher pain in most pain assessment and treatment domains compared to their demographic counterparts. Similarly the virtual human-sex difference ratings were more pronounced for nurses than physicians. Given the large number of patients seen throughout the healthcare professionals' careers, these pain practice biases have important public health implications. This study suggests attention to the influence of patient demographic cues in pain management education is needed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Laypeople and healthcare professionals use demographic cues when making pain management decisions. These decisions can negatively affect patient outcomes. This study examined whether laypeople base their pain management decisions in part on pain-related postures and demographic cues. Virtual human (VH) technology was used to research whether sex and race, as well as body posture, influenced pain management decisions. Ninety-seven laypersons examined VH patients exhibiting low back pain related body postures whose demographic cues varied by VH sex and VH race. T tests validated that participants were able to distinguish between high pain related body postures and low pain related body postures. The participants assessed male VH patients to be experiencing more pain than female VH patients. This study suggests that participants use sex as a cue when assessing pain. Participants may perceive VH male patients as experiencing high pain intensity if the participants are willing to counter male stereotypes and acknowledge that the male VH patients display pain behaviors.

Healthcare professionals use race, gender, and age cues when making pain management decisions. Use of these demographic cues, therefore, is an important topic in the study of healthcare disparities. This study used virtual human (VH) technology to investigate the effects of VH patients' demographic cues on dentists' pain management decisions. Eighty-nine dentists viewed patients with different demographic cues. Analyses revealed that dentists rated pain intensity higher and were more willing to prescribe opioids to female, African-American, and younger patients than to their demographic counterparts. Results also found significant 2-way interactions between race and age for both pain assessment and treatment decisions. The interaction results suggest that the race difference (Caucasian < African American) was more pronounced for younger than for older patients. This is the first study to examine demographic cue use in dentists' decision-making for pain. The study found that dentists used demographic cues when making pain management decisions. Currently, there are no guidelines for decision- making practices for gender-, race-, or age-related pain. Since dentists see thousands of patients during their careers, the use of demographic cues could affect a substantial portion of the population. The findings could improve future training programs for dentists and dental students.

Unlabelled: Sex, race/ethnic, and age differences in pain have been reported in clinical and experimental research. Gender role expectations have partly explained the variability in sex differences in pain, and the Gender Role Expectations of Pain questionnaire (GREP) was developed to measure sex-related stereotypic attributions about pain. It is hypothesized that similar expectations exist for age- and race-related pain decisions. This study investigated new measures of race/ethnic- and age-related stereotypic attributions of pain sensitivity and willingness to report pain, and examined the psychometric properties of a modified GREP. Participants completed the Race/Ethnicity Expectations of Pain questionnaire, Age Expectations of Pain questionnaire, and modified GREP. Results revealed a 3-factor solution to the race/ethnicity questionnaire and a 2-factor solution to the age questionnaire, consistent with theoretical construction of the items. Results revealed a 4-factor solution to the modified GREP that differed from the original GREP and theoretical construction of the items. Participants' pain-related stereotypic attributions differed across racial/ethnic, age, and gender groups. These findings provide psychometric support for the measures examined herein and suggest that stereotypic attributions of pain in others differ across demographic categories. Future work can refine the measures and examine whether select demographic variables influence pain perception, assessment, and/or treatment., Perspective: The findings suggest that one's expectations of the pain experience of another person are influenced by the stereotypes one has about different genders, races, and ages. The 3 pain expectation measures investigated in the current study could be used in future work examining biases in pain assessment and treatment., (Copyright © 2012 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients' sex, race, and age have been found to affect others' perception of their pain. However, the influence of these characteristics on treatment recommendations from laypersons and healthcare providers is understudied., Design: To address this issue, 75 undergraduates and 107 healthcare trainees (HTs) used a web-based delivery system to view video clips of virtual human (VH) patients presenting with different standardized levels of pain. Subjects then rated the VHs' pain intensity and recommended the amount of medical treatment the VHs should receive., Results: Results indicated that, compared with undergraduates, HTs perceived African Americans and older adults as having less pain but were more willing to recommend medical treatment for these patients than were undergraduate participants. HTs and undergraduates rated female, African American, older, and high-pain-expressing adults as having greater pain intensity than male, Caucasian, younger, and lower-pain-expressing adults. Moreover, they also recommended that female, older, and high-pain-expressing adults receive more medical treatment than male, younger, and lower-pain-expressing adults., Conclusions: This study found that the characteristics of the VHs and whether the participants were undergraduates or HTs influenced the ratings of pain assessment and treatment recommendations. The findings are consistent with the previous VH literature showing that VH characteristics are important cues in the perception and treatment of pain. However, this is the first study to identify differences in pain-related decisions between individuals who are pursuing healthcare careers and those who are not. Finally, not only does this study serve as further evidence for the validity and potential of VH technology but also it confirms prior research that has shown that biases regarding patient sex, race, and age can affect pain assessment and treatment.