"It Made Me Not Want to See him ": The Role of Patient-Provider Communication in Influencing Rural-Dwelling Women Veterans' Motivation to Seek Health Care for Managing Chronic Pain.

Despite being high health care utilizers, many women Veterans perceive their pain condition to be poorly understood by their providers, which can be a strong demotivator for seeking care. We set out to understand the priorities rural-dwelling women Veterans have for using health care for their chronic pain, and interviewed participants about their experiences with (and priorities for seeking) health care for their chronic pain. Self-Determination Theory identifies three sources of motivation (autonomy, competence, relatedness), all of which were represented through two themes that reflect rural women Veterans' rationale for decision-making to obtain health care for chronic pain: role of trust and competing priorities. Women described their priorities for chronic pain management in terms of their competing priorities for work, education, and supporting their family, but most expressed a desire to function in their daily life and relationships. Second, women discussed the role of trust in their provider as a source of motivation, and the role of patient-provider communication skills and gender played in establishing trust. Rural women Veterans often discussed core values that stemmed from facets of their identity (e.g. gender, military training, ethnicity) that also influenced their decision-making. Our findings provide insight for how providers may use Motivational Interviewing and discuss chronic pain treatment options so that rural-dwelling women Veterans feel autonomous, competent, and understood in their decision-making about their chronic pain. We also discuss importance of acknowledging the effects of disenfranchising talk and perpetuating gendered stereotypes related to chronic pain and theoretical implications of this work.

Differences in chronic pain care receipt among veterans from differing racialized groups and the impact of rural versus urban residence.

PURPOSE: The current study aimed to identify differences in Veterans Affairs (VA) chronic pain care for Black, Asian, and Hispanic Americans, compared to non-Hispanic White Americans, and examine the intersection of race and rurality. METHODS: Using national administrative data, all veterans who presented to the VA for chronic pain in 2018 were included. Demographic and comorbidity variables were built from 2018 data and health care utilization variables from 2019 data. Multivariate log-binomial regression models examined differences between racialized groups, and interactions with rural/urban residence, for each health care utilization variable. FINDINGS: The full cohort included 2,135,216 veterans with chronic pain. There were no differences between racialized groups in pain-related primary care visits. Black Americans were less likely to receive pain clinic visits (aRR = 0.87, CI: 0.86-0.88). Rurality further decreased the likelihood of Black Americans visiting a pain clinic. Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans were more likely to receive pain-related physical therapy visits relative to White Americans. Black and Hispanic Americans were more likely to present to emergency/urgent care for chronic pain. While there were no differences in pain-related primary care visits, the decreased likelihood of pain clinic visits and increased use of emergency department/urgent care among Black Americans could indicate inadequate management of chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored strategies are needed to provide equitable care that meets the needs of patients from racialized groups while accounting for systemic and cultural factors.

Race Differences in Veteran's Affairs Emergency Department Utilization.

INTRODUCTION: African Americans (AAs) experience disparities in chronic pain care. This study aimed to identify the rates of emergency department (ED) utilization for visits associated with chronic pain diagnoses among AAs compared to Whites and to determine variables that accounted for any differences. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used national Veterans Affairs (Veteran's Health Administration) administrative data to identify Veterans with chronic pain diagnoses in 2018. Race/ethnicity was self-reported and assessed to examine if differences exist in ED utilization. Differences between AAs and Whites were examined using negative binomial regression models, controlling for ethnicity. Multivariable models (including demographics, pain characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, medical comorbidities, pain-related health care utilization, and medication utilization) were examined to determine factors that contributed to these disparities. RESULTS: Among the 2,261,030 patients, 22% (n = 492,138) were AA. The incidence rate ratio of ED utilization for AAs, relative to Whites, was 1.58 (95% CI: 1.56-1.59). The only independent variable that produced a clinically meaningful reduction in the race effect on ED use was rurality, which was associated with reduced ED use. Post hoc model including all variables reduced the race effect to 1.37 (95% CI: 1.36-1.38). CONCLUSION: AA Veterans had a 58% greater risk of ED utilization for visits associated with chronic pain diagnoses relative to White Veterans, which remained meaningfully elevated after adjustment for observable confounders (37%). This observation may reflect disparities in outpatient chronic pain care for AAs. Future research could focus on enhancing therapeutic alliance in primary care to improve chronic pain treatment for AAs.

A factor analytic evaluation of the Self-Stigma Scale-Short (SSS-S) among psychosocial clubhouse members in the United States.

The main purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure, the internal consistency, and other aspects of validity of the English version of the Self-Stigma Scale-Short (SSS-S). In the present study, the SSS-S was assessed in a sample of 194 adults with psychiatric disabilities from four Psychosocial Clubhouses in the Southern and Midwestern United States. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 98) supported a one-factor structure of the SSS-S, which accounted for 59% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 96) demonstrated that the factor structure of the SSS-S was satisfactory. The scale was also reliable, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 and 0.91 for the EFA and CFA samples, respectively. The SSS-S showed adequate convergent and criterion-related validity, as indicated by statistically significant positive correlations between internalized stigma with perceived societal stigma, symptom severity, and functional impairment, as well as negative correlations between internalized stigma with perceived social self-efficacy, social support, and resiliency. Overall, these findings support the English version of the SSS-S as a valid and reliable tool for determining the internalized stigma of adults with psychiatric disabilities in clinical settings and similar research.