Use of Nonpharmacologic Interventions by Adults With High‐Impact Chronic Pain in the United States: A Cross‐Sectional Analysis

<b>Introduction:</b> Few studies compare differences in the use of nonpharmacologic interventions (NPIs) between those with high-impact chronic pain (HICP) and low-impact chronic pain (LICP) or describe differences in the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain. <b>Objectives:</b> To describe the use of NPIs in HICP and LICP subgroups and to examine the association between locations of bothersome pain and use of NPIs among those with HICP. <b>Methods:</b> We used data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. After identifying respondents who reported having chronic pain, we then created high and low pain impact subgroups. Additional variables in our analyses included sociodemographic data, health characteristics, and pain management characteristics. Our analysis included descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, and adjusted survey-weighted logistic regression models. <b>Results:</b> The estimated prevalence of chronic pain in US adults was 19.9% (95% CI: 19.5-20.0), with 36.4% (95% CI: 35.1-38.0) of that group having HICP. Of those with HICP, 69.7% (95% CI: 67.6-71.9) reported using ≥ 1 NPIs in the past 3 months, compared to 62.9% (95% CI: 61.1-64.6) with LICP. The most frequently used NPI was physical, rehabilitative, or occupational therapy (25.9%, 95% CI: 24.0-27.9), and the least used was a peer support group (2.7%, 95% CI: 2.0-3.6). Among those with HICP, bothersome back pain (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.19-1.95) and upper extremity pain (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.003-1.59) are associated with the greater use of any NPIs compared to those without bothersome pain at these sites, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> Our findings highlight that most US adults with HICP have recently used NPIs to manage their pain, but the use of specific NPIs varied considerably. The odds of using NPIs were different depending on the locations of bothersome pain. Future work should examine barriers for access to specific NPIs or the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Pain Research and Management
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1155/prm/5213178
Primary Topic
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Use of Nonpharmacologic Interventions by Adults With High‐Impact Chronic Pain in the United States: A Cross‐Sectional Analysis

Robert H. Schmicker, Sean D. Rundell, Natasha Parman
1 links
Pain Research and Management
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
article

Use of Nonpharmacologic Interventions by Adults With High‐Impact Chronic Pain in the United States: A Cross‐Sectional Analysis

Robert H. Schmicker, Sean D. Rundell, Natasha Parman
article en

Abstract

<b>Introduction:</b> Few studies compare differences in the use of nonpharmacologic interventions (NPIs) between those with high-impact chronic pain (HICP) and low-impact chronic pain (LICP) or describe differences in the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain. <b>Objectives:</b> To describe the use of NPIs in HICP and LICP subgroups and to examine the association between locations of bothersome pain and use of NPIs among those with HICP. <b>Methods:</b> We used data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. After identifying respondents who reported having chronic pain, we then created high and low pain impact subgroups. Additional variables in our analyses included sociodemographic data, health characteristics, and pain management characteristics. Our analysis included descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, and adjusted survey-weighted logistic regression models. <b>Results:</b> The estimated prevalence of chronic pain in US adults was 19.9% (95% CI: 19.5-20.0), with 36.4% (95% CI: 35.1-38.0) of that group having HICP. Of those with HICP, 69.7% (95% CI: 67.6-71.9) reported using ≥ 1 NPIs in the past 3 months, compared to 62.9% (95% CI: 61.1-64.6) with LICP. The most frequently used NPI was physical, rehabilitative, or occupational therapy (25.9%, 95% CI: 24.0-27.9), and the least used was a peer support group (2.7%, 95% CI: 2.0-3.6). Among those with HICP, bothersome back pain (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.19-1.95) and upper extremity pain (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.003-1.59) are associated with the greater use of any NPIs compared to those without bothersome pain at these sites, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> Our findings highlight that most US adults with HICP have recently used NPIs to manage their pain, but the use of specific NPIs varied considerably. The odds of using NPIs were different depending on the locations of bothersome pain. Future work should examine barriers for access to specific NPIs or the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain.

Pain Research and ManagementVol. 2025(1)
University of Washington (US)
University of Washington, Institute of Translational Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Institute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.