Cargando…

Are Pain Screening and Functional Assessment Results Associated with New Diagnoses and Treatment for Pain in Primary Care? An Observational Study

PURPOSE: To determine if pain screening and functional assessment results are associated with new diagnoses and treatment for pain in primary care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study at 13 primary care sites of a statewide federally qualified health center that implemented routine screening a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hudson Scholle, Sarah, Nguyen-Louie, Tam T, Bifulco, Lauren, Blaz, Jacquelyn W, Blankson, Mary L, Channamsetty, Veena, Anderson, Daren R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9362509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35957962
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S367480
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To determine if pain screening and functional assessment results are associated with new diagnoses and treatment for pain in primary care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study at 13 primary care sites of a statewide federally qualified health center that implemented routine screening and functional assessment for all adults in primary care. The study group included 10,091 adults aged 18+ who had an in-person visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, where they screened positive for chronic pain and completed a 3-question functional assessment with the PEG (Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity). Multivariate logistic regressions quantified associations between pain frequency, diagnosis and treatment, sociodemographics, comorbidities, and self-reported severe pain impairment with pain diagnoses and treatment documented after screening. RESULTS: Patients were mostly women (60.3%), Latinx (41.1%), English-speaking (80.1%), and Medicaid-insured (62.0%); they averaged 49.1 years old (SD = 13.7 years). Patients with severe pain impairment or who were Latinx were more likely to get a newly documented pain diagnosis (absolute risk difference [ARD]: 13.2% and 8.6%, ps < 0.0001), while patients with mental health/substance use or medical comorbidities were less likely (ARDs: −20.0% to −6.2%, ps < 0.001). Factors most consistently associated with treatment were prior treatment of the same modality (4 of 7 treatments, ARDs = 27.3% to 44.1%, ps <0.0001), new pain diagnosis (5 of 7, ARDs = 3.2% to 27.4%, ps <0.001), and severe impairment (4 of 7, ARDs = 2.6% to 6.5%, ps < 0.0001). A new diagnosis had the strongest association with non-opioid pain analgesics and physical medicine (ARD = 27.0% and 27.4%, p < 0.0001). Latinx patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesics and mental health/substance use medications and counseling (ARDs = −3.3% to 7.5%, ps <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Screening and assessment with patient-reported tools may influence pain care. Care for Latinx patients differed from non-Latinx white patients.