Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Pain ; 165(3): 666-673, 2024 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37733475

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Co-occurrence of chronic pain and clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and/or depression is regularly noted in the literature. Yet, little is known empirically about population prevalence of co-occurring symptoms, nor whether people with co-occurring symptoms constitute a distinct subpopulation within US adults living with chronic pain or US adults living with anxiety and/or depression symptoms (A/D). To address this gap, this study analyzes data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a representative annual survey of self-reported health status and treatment use in the United States (n = 31,997). Approximately 12 million US adults, or 4.9% of the adult population, have co-occurring chronic pain and A/D symptoms. Unremitted A/D symptoms co-occurred in 23.9% of US adults with chronic pain, compared with an A/D prevalence of 4.9% among those without chronic pain. Conversely, chronic pain co-occurred in the majority (55.6%) of US adults with unremitted A/D symptoms, compared with a chronic pain prevalence of 17.1% among those without A/D symptoms. The likelihood of experiencing functional limitations in daily life was highest among those experiencing co-occurring symptoms, compared with those experiencing chronic pain alone or A/D symptoms alone. Among those with co-occurring symptoms, 69.4% reported that work was limited due to a health problem, 43.7% reported difficulty doing errands alone, and 55.7% reported difficulty participating in social activities. These data point to the need for targeted investment in improving functional outcomes for the nearly 1 in 20 US adults living with co-occurring chronic pain and clinically significant A/D symptoms.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Depression , Adult , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Chronic Pain/epidemiology , Prevalence , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety Disorders
2.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37887688

ABSTRACT

The United States is experiencing a crisis of opioid misuse and overdose. To understand the underlying factors, researchers have begun looking upstream to identify social and structural determinants. However, no study has yet aggregated these into a comprehensive ecology of opioid overdose. We scoped 68 literature sources and compiled a master list of opioid misuse and overdose conditions. We grouped the conditions and used the Social Ecological Model to organize them into a diagram. We reviewed the diagram with nine subject matter experts (SMEs) who provided feedback on its content, design, and usefulness. From a literature search and SME interviews, we identified 80 unique conditions of opioid overdose and grouped them into 16 categories. In the final diagram, we incorporated 40 SME-recommended changes. In commenting on the diagram's usefulness, SMEs explained that the diagram could improve intervention planning by demonstrating the complexity of opioid overdose and highlighting structural factors. However, care is required to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and legibility. Multiple design formats may be useful, depending on the communication purpose and audience. This ecological diagram offers a visual perspective of the conditions of opioid overdose.


Subject(s)
Drug Overdose , Opiate Overdose , Opioid-Related Disorders , Prescription Drug Misuse , Humans , United States , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Opiate Overdose/drug therapy , Drug Overdose/epidemiology , Drug Overdose/drug therapy , Opioid-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy
3.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35742745

ABSTRACT

The lack of literature on Indigenous conceptions of health and the social determinants of health (SDH) for US Indigenous communities limits available information for Indigenous nations as they set policy and allocate resources to improve the health of their citizens. In 2015, eight scholars from tribal communities and mainstream educational institutions convened to examine: the limitations of applying the World Health Organization's (WHO) SDH framework in Indigenous communities; Indigenizing the WHO SDH framework; and Indigenous conceptions of a healthy community. Participants critiqued the assumptions within the WHO SDH framework that did not cohere with Indigenous knowledges and epistemologies and created a schematic for conceptualizing health and categorizing its determinants. As Indigenous nations pursue a policy role in health and seek to improve the health and wellness of their nations' citizens, definitions of Indigenous health and well-being should be community-driven and Indigenous-nation based. Policies and practices for Indigenous nations and Indigenous communities should reflect and arise from sovereignty and a comprehensive understanding of the nations and communities' conceptions of health and its determinants beyond the SDH.


Subject(s)
Social Determinants of Health , Social Factors , Health Status , Humans
4.
Am J Health Behav ; 43(1): 88-104, 2019 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30522569

ABSTRACT

Objective: There is a lack of consensus on whether e-cigarettes facilitate or threaten existing tobacco prevention strategies. This uncertainty is reflected in organizations' conflicting e-cigarette position statements. We conducted a scoping review of position statements in published and gray literature to map the range and frequency of e-cigarette use recommendations. Methods: We collected 81 statements from international health organizations. Two coders independently performed qualitative content analysis to categorize e-cigarette recommendations. We explored differences based on organization type, geography, and the year recommendations were published. Results: We identified 5 recommendation types: encourage smokers to use ecigarettes as a cessation aid or as an alternative source of nicotine (N = 5); support individuals who use e-cigarettes to quit smoking (N = 20); avoid using until more research is available (N = 19); restrict access based on available evidence (N = 30); and prohibit e-cigarette marketing and sale (N = 7). Conclusion: Organizations presented diverse e-cigarette use recommendations. The variation related to organizations' differing tobacco prevention priorities and level of confidence in current e-cigarette research. These differences may create confusion. Additional research can examine whether this variability influences stakeholders' attitudes or behavior.


Subject(s)
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems/standards , Guidelines as Topic/standards , Smoking Cessation , Smoking Prevention/standards , Vaping , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...