The FDA's Diverse and Dynamic Activities in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: Advancing and Supporting Health Equity.

The U.S. encompasses a heterogenous mix of people and health disparities exist for various subpopulations, such as minorities, women, people with limited English proficiency, those with low socioeconomic status, and other underserved groups. Differences in health outcomes arise in part due to inequalities and injustices rooted in biological, social, and structural factors. Because the origins of health disparities are multifactorial, the approaches to reduce, or even eliminate them, must be multifactorial as well. The social and behavioral sciences are well poised to address the myriad and complex factors that affect health outcomes, including those at the individual level (eg, individuals' behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs), the neighborhood level (eg, housing), the community level (eg, cultural values and norms), and the policy level (eg, public policies that influence healthcare funding and access to healthcare resources and educational materials). In addition, the social and behavioral sciences (1) help equip government agencies with the perspectives and tools needed to promote health equity and (2) contribute to rigorous, evidence-based solutions for public health issues, such as disparities found in childhood vaccination rates, childhood obesity, tobacco use, and access to health information technology. The FDA, in particular, actively conducts social and behavioral sciences research to guide the Agency's efforts to advance and support health equity.

On Being the "Right" Kind of Chronic Pain Patient.

The intertwined themes that emerge from these passionately told narratives demonstrate how difficult it can be to navigate chronic pain. Many authors describe the labor of living in chronic pain, and several refer to their use of opioid medication as a tool to facilitate participation. The relationship between tolerance, dependence, and addiction is touched on in a handful of narratives, with some authors confronting-and seemingly internalizing-the stigma of addiction in seeking to regulate their opioid use. A related theme is the reduction of opioid medication; a few authors pronounce consensual tapering as beneficial, while others denounce non-consensual tapering as harmful. Most authors also assert their right to make pain management decisions without bureaucratic interference, suggesting that they and other chronic pain patients face reduced access to opioid prescriptions as a result of inappropriately applied governmental guidelines. As richly detailed and informative as these narratives are, they scarcely engage with the reality that chronic pain disproportionately burdens patients who are less privileged in terms of education, race, gender, and class.