Department of Biobehavioral Health Sciences, New Courtland Center for Transitions & Health, Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, 418 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4217, USA.
Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01310.x. Epub 2012 Jan 13.
The recent Institute of Medicine Report assessing the state of pain care in the United States acknowledged the lack of consistent data to describe the nature and magnitude of unrelieved pain and identify subpopulations with disproportionate burdens.
We synthesized 20 years of cumulative evidence on racial/ethnic disparities in analgesic treatment for pain in the United States. Evidence was examined for the 1) magnitude of association between race/ethnicity and analgesic treatment; 2) subgroups at an increased risk; and 3) the effect of moderators (pain type, setting, study quality, and data collection period) on this association.
United States studies with at least one explicit aim or analysis comparing analgesic treatment for pain between Whites and a minority group were included (SciVerse Scopus database, 1989-2011).
Blacks/African Americans experienced both a higher number and magnitude of disparities than any other group in the analyses. Opioid treatment disparities were ameliorated for Hispanics/Latinos for "traumatic/surgical" pain (P = 0.293) but remained for "non-traumatic/nonsurgical" pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.77, P = 0.000). For Blacks/African Americans, opioid prescription disparities were present for both types of pain and were starker for "non-traumatic/nonsurgical" pain (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.59-0.75, P = 0.000). In subanalyses, opioid treatment disparities for Blacks/African Americans remained consistent across pain types, settings, study quality, and data collection periods.
Our study quantifies the magnitude of analgesic treatment disparities in subgroups of minorities. The size of the difference was sufficiently large to raise not only normative but quality and safety concerns. The treatment gap does not appear to be closing with time or existing policy initiatives. A concerted strategy is needed to reduce pain care disparities within the larger quality of care initiatives.
最近,美国医学研究所(Institute of Medicine)发布的一份报告评估了美国的疼痛护理状况,报告承认缺乏一致的数据来描述未缓解疼痛的性质和程度,并确定了负担不成比例的亚人群。
我们综合了 20 年来美国在种族/民族疼痛治疗差异方面的累积证据。评估了种族/民族与镇痛治疗之间的关联程度;2)风险增加的亚组;3)调节因素(疼痛类型、环境、研究质量和数据收集期)对该关联的影响。
纳入了至少有一个明确目标或分析比较白人和少数民族人群疼痛镇痛治疗的美国研究(SciVerse Scopus 数据库,1989-2011 年)。
在分析中,黑人/非裔美国人经历的差异数量和程度都高于其他任何群体。西班牙裔/拉丁裔的创伤/手术性疼痛的阿片类药物治疗差异有所改善(P=0.293),但非创伤/非手术性疼痛的差异仍然存在(比值比[OR]为 0.70,95%置信区间[CI]为 0.64-0.77,P=0.000)。对于黑人/非裔美国人,阿片类药物处方的差异存在于两种类型的疼痛中,对于非创伤/非手术性疼痛更为明显(OR=0.66,95%CI=0.59-0.75,P=0.000)。在亚分析中,黑人/非裔美国人的阿片类药物治疗差异在疼痛类型、环境、研究质量和数据收集期之间保持一致。
我们的研究量化了少数民族亚人群中镇痛治疗差异的程度。差异的大小不仅引起了规范性问题,而且还引起了质量和安全性问题。随着时间的推移或现有政策举措,治疗差距似乎并没有缩小。需要采取协调一致的策略,在更大的医疗质量举措中减少疼痛护理差异。