Disparities in Clinical and Experimental Pain Between Non-Hispanic White and Asian American Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis and the Role of Pain Catastrophizing: Pilot Study in Florida
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although a few studies have delineated the disparities in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) pain between non-Hispanic White and Asian American individuals, a significant research gap persists in elucidating the mechanisms underlying these differences. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aims to examine psychological factors, specifically pain catastrophizing and negative affect, as potential explanatory mechanisms for these dissimilarities. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used. Forty community-dwelling participants aged 50-70 years with self-reported KOA pain, including 20 non-Hispanic White and 20 Asian American individuals, were recruited in North Central Florida. Clinical KOA pain intensity was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the 4 subscales of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2. Quantitative sensory testing was conducted to measure experimental sensitivity to heat- and mechanically induced pain, including heat pain, pressure pain threshold, and punctate mechanical pain, as well as inhibitory pain processes through conditioned pain modulation. Pain catastrophizing was evaluated using the Coping Strategies Questionnaire-Revised Pain Catastrophizing subscale, while negative affect was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Bayesian mediation analyses were used to examine both direct and indirect effects (mediation) between variables. RESULTS: Asian American individuals exhibited higher pain catastrophizing scores than non-Hispanic White individuals. Pain catastrophizing, at high levels, contributed to WOMAC and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2, which measured clinical pain. Race had no direct effects on these pain scores but exerted significant indirect effects via pain catastrophizing (WOMAC pain: 0.96, 95% CI 0.03-2.16; continuous pain: 0.84, 95% CI 0.18-1.70; intermittent pain: 0.78, 95% CI 0.03-1.71; neuropathic pain: 0.43, 95% CI 0.03-0.95; and affective pain: 1.05, 95% CI 0.24-1.99); thus, pain catastrophizing likely fully mediated the relationship between race and these pain measures. While Asian American individuals reported greater experimental pain sensitivity (heat pain, pressure pain threshold, and punctate mechanical pain) than non-Hispanic White individuals, these racial effects were not mediated by pain catastrophizing. Asian American individuals reported higher negative affect scores compared with non-Hispanic White individuals; however, negative affect did not mediate the relationship between race and any pain measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the contribution of pain catastrophizing to clinical pain in Asian American individuals with KOA and identify it as a potential mechanism underlying group differences in KOA pain between non-Hispanic White and Asian American individuals. However, caution is warranted due to the exploratory nature of this study and the treatment of Asian American individuals as a monolithic sample. Hence, future replication with larger and more diverse samples is necessary. Additionally, the lack of mediation effects of pain catastrophizing in the relationship between race and experimental pain suggests the need to explore other factors, such as biological, genetic, social, and environmental influences. Moreover, further research is essential to clarify the role of negative affect.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».