Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2026
Use of the Operant Orofacial Pain Assessment Device OPAD to Measure Changes in Nociceptive Behavior
Published on: June 10, 2013
Pain and Analgesic Utilization in Medically Underserved Areas: Five-Year Prevalence Study from the Rochester
Ryan S D'Souza1, Jennifer Eller1, Chelsey Hoffmann1
1Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Purpose:
There is a paucity of data on pain diagnoses and analgesic utilization in medically underserved areas (MUAs). This study compared the prevalence of pain diagnoses and analgesic medication use between MUAs and non-medically underserved areas (N-MUAs) in Southern Minnesota and Western Wisconsin using the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) database.
Methods:
Five-year prevalence per 100 people (January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2016) was extracted from the REP database for multiple pain diagnosis variables and analgesic medications. Primary outcomes included comparison of five-year prevalence of each pain diagnosis and analgesic between MUA and N-MUA; and association between index of medical underservice (IMU) score and five-year prevalence for each pain diagnosis and analgesic. Linear regression models were performed to assess associations and significance thresholds were adjusted per the Bonferroni approach to account for multiplicity.
Results:
The prevalence per 100 people for a diagnosis of chronic pain was similar between MUAs and N-MUAs (13.8 ± 2.5 vs 14.6 ± 2.0, P = 0.543). Similarly, prevalence per 100 people for other specific pain diagnoses including nonspecific chest pain, abdominal pain, lumbago, somatoform disorder, and painful respiration did not differ based on MUA status. In terms of analgesic use, prevalence per 100 people for use of opioids, non-opioid analgesics, salicylates, and NSAIDs did not differ based on MUA status. An association between higher IMU scores and lower prevalence of painful respiration was identified, although this was not significant after significance threshold adjustment per the Bonferroni method.
Conclusion:
Our data suggest that there are no differences in several pain diagnoses and analgesic utilization between MUAs versus N-MUAs, and that the IMU score did not predict changes in prevalence of pain diagnoses or analgesic utilization. Future powered and national database studies are warranted to increase validity of findings to other populations outside of Southern Minnesota and Western Wisconsin.
