4.4 Article

Comorbid Chronic Pain and Depression: Who Is at Risk?

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 619-627

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.007

关键词

Chronic pain; depression; comorbidity; risk factors; epidemiology

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [K01 MH66975] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence and demographic risk factors of chronic pain and its comorbidity with depression. Computer-assisted telephone interviewing was utilized to obtain a representative community sample in the state of Michigan (n = 1,179). The prevalence of chronic pain due to any cause was 21.9%. Approximately 35% of participants with chronic pain also had comorbid depression (7.7% of the entire sample). Depression was not associated with pain types or sites. A multinomial-regression analysis revealed several demographic correlates of chronic pain and depression. Participants with chronic pain or comorbid pain and depression were more likely to be older, female, employed less than full-time, and have less education than persons without either condition. Logistic regression analyses showed that younger participants were more likely to have comorbid pain and depression than chronic pain only. A similar but marginally significant effect was found for African American participants, Compared to the depression-only group, those in the comorbid group were more likely to be women and middle-aged. These findings provide additional evidence on the prevalence of comorbid pain and depression in the community and suggest that certain demographic groups with chronic pain may especially benefit from depression screenings. Perspective: This article reports on the prevalence of chronic pain and co-occurring depression in a representative community sample. The high prevalence rates of pain and comorbid depression point to the clinical importance of assessing depression in chronic pain samples. (C) 2009 by the American Pain Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据