Introduction: Few studies compare differences in the use of nonpharmacologic interventions (NPIs) between those with high-impact chronic pain (HICP) and low-impact chronic pain (LICP) or describe differences in the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain. Objectives: To describe the use of NPIs in HICP and LICP subgroups and to examine the association between locations of bothersome pain and use of NPIs among those with HICP. Methods: We used data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. After identifying respondents who reported having chronic pain, we then created high and low pain impact subgroups. Additional variables in our analyses included sociodemographic data, health characteristics, and pain management characteristics. Our analysis included descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, and adjusted survey-weighted logistic regression models. Results: The estimated prevalence of chronic pain in US adults was 19.9% (95% CI: 19.5-20.0), with 36.4% (95% CI: 35.1-38.0) of that group having HICP. Of those with HICP, 69.7% (95% CI: 67.6-71.9) reported using ≥ 1 NPIs in the past 3 months, compared to 62.9% (95% CI: 61.1-64.6) with LICP. The most frequently used NPI was physical, rehabilitative, or occupational therapy (25.9%, 95% CI: 24.0-27.9), and the least used was a peer support group (2.7%, 95% CI: 2.0-3.6). Among those with HICP, bothersome back pain (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.19-1.95) and upper extremity pain (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.003-1.59) are associated with the greater use of any NPIs compared to those without bothersome pain at these sites, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings highlight that most US adults with HICP have recently used NPIs to manage their pain, but the use of specific NPIs varied considerably. The odds of using NPIs were different depending on the locations of bothersome pain. Future work should examine barriers for access to specific NPIs or the use of NPIs by locations of bothersome pain.

Copyright © 2025 Natasha L. Parman et al. Pain Research and Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

引言：很少有研究比较高影响慢性疼痛（HICP）和低影响慢性疼痛（LICP）在使用非药物干预措施（NPIs）方面的差异，或描述不同疼痛部位的患者在使用NPIs方面的差异。目的： 描述HICP和LICP亚组中NPIs的使用情况，并研究那些有HICP的人群中引起烦恼的疼痛位置与使用NPIs之间的关联。方法： 我们使用了2019年国家健康访谈调查的数据。在确定报告患有慢性疼痛的受访者后，我们创建了高影响和低影响疼痛亚组。我们的分析还包括人口统计学数据、健康特征和疼痛管理特性等额外变量。我们的分析包括描述性统计、卡方检验以及调整后的抽样加权逻辑回归模型。结果： 美国成年人中慢性疼痛的估计患病率为19.9%（95% CI：19.5-20.0），其中36.4%（95% CI：35.1-38.0）的人群患有HICP。在那些有HICP的人群中，过去三个月内报告使用至少一种NPIs的比例为69.7%（95% CI：67.6-71.9），相比之下，LICP的这一比例为62.9%（95% CI：61.1-64.6）。最常见的NPI是物理、康复或职业治疗（25.9%，95% CI：24.0-27.9），而最少使用的则是互助支持小组（2.7%，95% CI：2.0-3.6）。对于有HICP的人群，引起烦恼的背痛（OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.19-1.95）和上肢疼痛（OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.003-1.59）与使用任何一种NPIs相比，不具有相应部位烦恼症状的人群而言，前者使用的可能性更大。结论： 我们的发现表明，大多数美国HICP成年人最近都在使用非药物干预措施来管理疼痛，但具体NPI的使用情况存在很大差异。根据引起烦恼的疼痛位置不同，使用NPIs的可能性也有所不同。未来的研究应该探讨获取特定NPI或依据不同疼痛部位使用NPI方面的障碍。

版权 © 2025 Natasha L. Parman 等人。《Pain Research and Management》由John Wiley & Sons Ltd出版。