Pharmacological Prescribing and Satisfaction with Pain Treatment Among Non-Hispanic Black Men with Chronic Pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Oluyomi Oloruntoba,1 Caroline D Bergeron,2 Lixian Zhong,3 Ashley L Merianos,4 Ledric D Sherman,5,6 Chung Lin Kew,5 R Kirby Goidel,7 Matthew Lee Smith5,6,8 1Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; 2LIFE Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 3Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Rangel School of Pharmacy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; 4School of Human Services, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 5Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; 6Center for Health Equity and Evaluation Research, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; 7Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; 8Center for Community Health and Aging, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USACorrespondence: Matthew Lee Smith, Email matthew.smith@tamu.eduIntroduction: Pharmacological strategies are often central to chronic pain management; however, pain treatment among non-Hispanic Black men may differ because of their disease profiles and healthcare interactions. However, less is known about pain medication prescribing and patients’ satisfaction with pain treatment and management among non-Hispanic Black men with self-reported chronic pain.Purpose: This study assessed factors associated with non-Hispanic Black men being prescribed/recommended narcotics/opioids for chronic pain and their satisfaction with pain treatment/management.Methods: Data were analyzed from 286 non-Hispanic Black men with chronic pain who completed an internet-delivered questionnaire. Participants were recruited nationwide using a Qualtrics web-based panel. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with being prescribed/recommended narcotics/opioids for pain management treatment. Then, ordinary least squares regression was used to identify factors associated with their satisfaction level with the pain treatment/management received.Results: On average, participants were 56.2 years old and 48.3% were prescribed/recommended narcotics/opioids for chronic pain. Men with more chronic conditions (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.57, P = 0.043) and depression/anxiety disorders (OR = 0.53, P = 0.029) were less likely to be prescribed/recommended narcotics/opioids. Men who were more educated (OR = 2.09, P = 0.044), reported more frequent chronic pain (OR = 1.28, P = 0.007), and were allowed to participate more in decisions about their pain treatment/management (OR = 1.11, P = 0.029) were more likely to be prescribed/recommended narcotics/opioids. On average, men with more frequent chronic pain (B = − 0.25, P = 0.015) and pain problems (B = − 0.16, P = 0.009) were less satisfied with their pain treatment/management. Men who were allowed to participate more in decisions about their pain treatment/management reported higher satisfaction with their pain treatment/management (B = 0.55, P < 0.001).Conclusion: Playing an active role in pain management can improve non-Hispanic Black men’s satisfaction with pain treatment/management. This study illustrates the importance of patient-centered approaches and inclusive patient-provider interactions to improve chronic pain management.Keywords: chronic pain, African American, non-Hispanic Black, men, prescription drugs, opioids, treatment satisfaction
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».