A B S T R A C TContext. Pain has significant socioeconomic, health, and quality-of-life implications. Racial-and ethnic-based differences in the pain care experience have been described. Racial and ethnic minorities tend to be undertreated for pain when compared with non-Hispanic Whites.Objectives. To provide health care providers, researchers, health care policy analysts, government officials, patients, and the general public with pertinent evidence regarding differences in pain perception, assessment, and treatment for racial and ethnic minorities. Evidence is provided for racialand ethnic-based differences in pain care across different types of pain (i.e., experimental pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, chronic non-malignant pain) and settings (i.e., emergency department). Pertinent literature on patient, health care provider, and health care system factors that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in pain treatment are provided.Evidence. A selective literature review was performed by experts in pain. The experts developed abstracts with relevant citations on racial and ethnic disparities within their specific areas of expertise. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The abstracts were compiled for this manuscript. The draft manuscript was made available to the experts for comment and review prior to submission for publication.Conclusions. Consistent with the Institute of Medicine's report on health care disparities, racial and ethnic disparities in pain perception, assessment, and treatment were found in all settings (i.e., postoperative, emergency room) and across all types of pain (i.e., acute, cancer, chronic nonmalignant, and experimental). The literature suggests that the sources of pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities are complex, involving patient (e.g., patient/health care provider communication, attitudes), health care provider (e.g., decision making), and health care system (e.g., access to pain medication) factors. There is a need for improved training for health care providers and educational interventions for patients. A comprehensive pain research agenda is necessary to address pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities.

Fillingim and Maixner (Fillingim, R.B. and Maixner, W., Pain Forum, 4(4) (1995) 209-221) recently reviewed the body of literature examining possible sex differences in responses to experimentally induced noxious stimulation. Using a 'box score' methodology, they concluded the literature supports sex differences in response to noxious stimuli, with females displaying greater sensitivity. However, Berkley (Berkley, K.J., Pain Forum, 4(4) (1995) 225-227) suggested the failure of a number of studies to reach statistical significance suggests the effect may be small and of little practical significance. This study used meta-analytic methodology to provide quantitative evidence to address the question of the magnitude of these sex differences in response to experimentally induced pain. We found the effect size to range from large to moderate, depending on whether threshold or tolerance were measured and which method of stimulus administration was used. The values for pressure pain and electrical stimulation, for both threshold and tolerance measures, were the largest. For studies employing a threshold measure, the effect for thermal pain was smaller and more variable. The failures to reject the null hypothesis in a number of these studies appear to have been a function of lack of power from an insufficient number of subjects. Given the estimated effect size of 0.55 threshold or 0.57 for tolerance, 41 subjects per group are necessary to provide adequate power (0.70) to test for this difference. Of the 34 studies reviewed by Fillingim and Maixner, only seven were conducted with groups of this magnitude. The results of this study compels to caution authors to obtain adequate sample sizes and hope that this meta-analytic review can aid in the determination of sample size for future studies.

No abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of an individual's Gender Role Expectations of Pain (GREP) on experimental pain report. One hundred and forty-eight subjects (87 females and 61 males) subjects underwent thermal testing and were asked to report pain threshold, pain tolerance, VAS ratings of pain intensity and unpleasantness, and a computerized visual analogue scales (VAS) rating of pain intensity during the procedure. Subjects completed the GREP questionnaire to assess sex-related stereotypic attributions of pain sensitivity, pain endurance, and willingness to report pain. Consistent with previous research, significant sex differences emerged for measures of pain threshold, pain tolerance, and pain unpleasantness. After statistically controlling for age, GREP scores were significant predictors of threshold, tolerance, and pain unpleasantness, accounting for an additional 7, 11, and 21% of the variance, respectively. Sex remained a significant predictor of pain tolerance in hierarchical regression analyses after controlling for GREP scores. Results provide support for two competing but not mutually exclusive hypotheses related to the sex differences in experimental pain. Both psychosocial factors and first-order, biological sex differences remain as viable explanations for differences in experimental pain report between the sexes. It appears that GREP do play a part in determining an individual's pain report and may be contributing to the sex differences in the laboratory setting.

Principal components analysis using a varimax rotation procedure identified nine factors that accounted for 54.5% of the variance. Of these nine factors, the first five represent subscales of the original CSQ subscales. The catastrophizing subscale replicated with significant loadings for all six original items, and ignoring sensations replicated with five of six items. Factors representing reinterpreting pain sensations, coping self-statements, and diverting attention subscales also appeared. The items from the praying and hoping subscale split into separate praying and hoping factors (factors 6 and 8). When reliability coefficients were calculated, factors 7 through 9 had unacceptably low internal consistency and thus were not considered stable factors. Correlations between factors 1 through 6 and other measures of psychological and physical functioning were calculated in the construct validation portion of this study. Previously found relationships were replicated in that the correlations between CSQ factor scores and measures of pain, depression, and disability were in the same direction in this data set as those previously reported.