Yingying Jiang, Tingling Xu, Fan Mao, Yu Miao, Botao Liu, Liyuan Xu, Lingni Li, Nikoletta Sternbach, Maigeng Zhou, Bifa Fan
{"title":"The prevalence and management of chronic pain in the Chinese population: findings from the China Pain Health Index (2020).","authors":"Yingying Jiang, Tingling Xu, Fan Mao, Yu Miao, Botao Liu, Liyuan Xu, Lingni Li, Nikoletta Sternbach, Maigeng Zhou, Bifa Fan","doi":"10.1186/s12963-022-00297-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic pain is a common disease; about 20% of people worldwide suffer from it. While compared with the research on the prevalence and management of chronic pain in developed countries, there is a relative lack of research in this field in China. This research aims to construct the China Pain Health Index (CPHI) to evaluate the current status of the prevalence and management of chronic pain in the Chinese population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The dimensions and indicators of CPHI were determined through literature review, Delphi method, and analytical hierarchy process model, and the original values of relevant indicators were obtained by collecting multi-source data. National and sub-provincial scores of CPHI (2020) were calculated by co-directional transformation, standardization, percentage transformation of the aggregate, and weighted summation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest CPHI score in 2020 is Beijing, and the lowest is Tibet. The top five provinces are Beijing (67.64 points), Shanghai (67.04 points), Zhejiang (65.74 points), Shandong (61.16 points), and Tianjin (59.99 points). The last five provinces are Tibet (33.10 points), Ningxia (37.24 points), Guizhou (39.85 points), Xinjiang (39.92 points), and Hainan (40.38 points). The prevalence of chronic pain is severe in Heilongjiang, Chongqing, Guizhou, Sichuan, and Fujian. Guizhou, Hainan, Xinjiang, Beijing, and Guangdong display a high burden of chronic pain. The five provinces of Guangdong, Shanghai, Beijing, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang have better treatment for chronic pain, while Tibet, Qinghai, Jilin, Ningxia, and Xinjiang have a lower quality of treatment. Beijing, Shanghai, Qinghai, Guangxi, and Hunan have relatively good development of chronic pain disciplines, while Tibet, Sichuan, Inner Mongolia, Hebei, and Guizhou are relatively poor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The economically developed provinces in China have higher CPHI scores, while economically underdeveloped areas have lower scores. The current pain diagnosis and treatment situation in economically developed regions is relatively good, while that in financially underdeveloped areas is rather poor. According to the variations in the prevalence and management of chronic pain among populations in different provinces in China, it is necessary to implement chronic pain intervention measures adapted to local conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9636663/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-022-00297-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Background: Chronic pain is a common disease; about 20% of people worldwide suffer from it. While compared with the research on the prevalence and management of chronic pain in developed countries, there is a relative lack of research in this field in China. This research aims to construct the China Pain Health Index (CPHI) to evaluate the current status of the prevalence and management of chronic pain in the Chinese population.
Methods: The dimensions and indicators of CPHI were determined through literature review, Delphi method, and analytical hierarchy process model, and the original values of relevant indicators were obtained by collecting multi-source data. National and sub-provincial scores of CPHI (2020) were calculated by co-directional transformation, standardization, percentage transformation of the aggregate, and weighted summation.
Results: The highest CPHI score in 2020 is Beijing, and the lowest is Tibet. The top five provinces are Beijing (67.64 points), Shanghai (67.04 points), Zhejiang (65.74 points), Shandong (61.16 points), and Tianjin (59.99 points). The last five provinces are Tibet (33.10 points), Ningxia (37.24 points), Guizhou (39.85 points), Xinjiang (39.92 points), and Hainan (40.38 points). The prevalence of chronic pain is severe in Heilongjiang, Chongqing, Guizhou, Sichuan, and Fujian. Guizhou, Hainan, Xinjiang, Beijing, and Guangdong display a high burden of chronic pain. The five provinces of Guangdong, Shanghai, Beijing, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang have better treatment for chronic pain, while Tibet, Qinghai, Jilin, Ningxia, and Xinjiang have a lower quality of treatment. Beijing, Shanghai, Qinghai, Guangxi, and Hunan have relatively good development of chronic pain disciplines, while Tibet, Sichuan, Inner Mongolia, Hebei, and Guizhou are relatively poor.
Conclusion: The economically developed provinces in China have higher CPHI scores, while economically underdeveloped areas have lower scores. The current pain diagnosis and treatment situation in economically developed regions is relatively good, while that in financially underdeveloped areas is rather poor. According to the variations in the prevalence and management of chronic pain among populations in different provinces in China, it is necessary to implement chronic pain intervention measures adapted to local conditions.
期刊介绍:
Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.