MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403757850 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.24.24316018

Pain Among US Adults Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study using the 2019-2023 National Health Interview Survey

2024· preprint· en· W4403757850 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Zajacova, Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk, Richard L. Nahin

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineVirologyGeographyInternal medicineOutbreakDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Importance Chronic pain (CP) is a major public health problem in the US. The COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread disruptions in the US and it is important to monitor changes in pain during and after the pandemic. Objective To determine prevalence of chronic pain (CP) and high-impact chronic pain (HICP) before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic and identify potential contributing factors. Methods We analyze a nationally representative sample of 88,469 community-dwelling Americans aged 18 and older from three cross-sectional waves of the National Health Interview Survey before (2019), during (2021), and after (2023) the COVID-19 pandemic. Year of interview is the exposure. All regression models control for age and sex; fully controlled models include 19 additional covariates (demographics, socioeconomic status, health behaviors, health conditions, mental health, and health insurance type); analyses also explore the role of long COVID. Outcomes are CP and HICP using measures proposed by the US National Pain Strategy; we also present findings for six site-specific pain measures. Results Between 2019 and 2023, CP and HICP prevalence increased by 18% and 13%, respectively. Specifically, CP prevalence was 20.6% (95%CI: 19.9-21.2%) in 2019, 20.9%(20.3-21.6%) in 2021, and 24.3% (23.7-25.0%) in 2023. HICP prevalence declined from 7.5% (7.1-7.8%) in 2019 to 6.9% (6.6-7.3%) in 2021, before rising sharply to 8.5% (8.1-8.9%) in 2023. The increases occurred in all examined body sites except for tooth/jaw pain, and in all major population groups. Approximately 13% of the increase in CP and HICP was attributable to long COVID. Conclusions and Relevance Pain among US adults was high before and during the pandemic but has surged substantially since. In 2023, an unprecedented 60 million Americans had chronic pain and 21 million had high-impact chronic pain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→