Adam Todd1,2, Courtney L McNamara3, Mirza Balaj3, Tim Huijts4, Nasima Akhter5, Katie Thomson2, Adetayo Kasim5, Terje A Eikemo3, Clare Bambra2. 1. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 2. Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 3. Centre for Global Health Inequalities Research (CHAIN), Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. 4. Department of Sociology, Wentworth College, University of York, York, UK. 5. Wolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing, Durham University, Queen's Campus, Stockton-on-Tees, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using data from the European Social Survey (ESS) 2014, this study presents an update of pain prevalence amongst men and women across Europe and undertakes the first analysis of socioeconomic inequalities in pain. METHODS: Data from the ESS 2014 survey were analysed for three pain variables: back/neck pain (n = 11,032), hand/arm pain (n = 5,954) and foot/leg pain (n = 6,314). Education was used as the indicator of socioeconomic status (SES). Age-adjusted risk differences and age-adjusted risk ratios were calculated from predicted probabilities generated by means of binary logistic regression. These analyses compared the lower education group with the higher education group (the socioeconomic gap), and the medium education group with the higher education group (the gradient). RESULTS: High prevalence rates were reported for all three types of pain across European countries. At a pan-European level, back/neck pain was the most prevalent with 40% of survey participants experiencing pain; then hand/arm pain at 22%, and then foot/leg pain at 21%. There was considerable cross-national variation in pain across European counties, as well as significant socioeconomic inequalities in the prevalence of pain-with social gradients or socioeconomic gaps evident for both men and women; socioeconomic inequalities were most pronounced for hand/arm pain, and least pronounced for back/neck pain. The magnitudes of the socioeconomic pain inequalities differed between countries, but were generally higher for women. CONCLUSIONS: Future strategies to reduce the burden of pain should acknowledge and consider the associated socioeconomic inequalities of pain to ensure the "pain gap" does not widen. SIGNIFICANCE: This is a pan European study that has explored socioeconomic inequalities in pain. Across Europe, pain is more prevalent in people of lower socioeconomic position; these pain inequalities were most significant for hand/arm pain, and least significant for back/neck pain.
BACKGROUND: Using data from the European Social Survey (ESS) 2014, this study presents an update of pain prevalence amongst men and women across Europe and undertakes the first analysis of socioeconomic inequalities in pain. METHODS: Data from the ESS 2014 survey were analysed for three pain variables: back/neck pain (n = 11,032), hand/arm pain (n = 5,954) and foot/leg pain (n = 6,314). Education was used as the indicator of socioeconomic status (SES). Age-adjusted risk differences and age-adjusted risk ratios were calculated from predicted probabilities generated by means of binary logistic regression. These analyses compared the lower education group with the higher education group (the socioeconomic gap), and the medium education group with the higher education group (the gradient). RESULTS: High prevalence rates were reported for all three types of pain across European countries. At a pan-European level, back/neck pain was the most prevalent with 40% of survey participants experiencing pain; then hand/arm pain at 22%, and then foot/leg pain at 21%. There was considerable cross-national variation in pain across European counties, as well as significant socioeconomic inequalities in the prevalence of pain-with social gradients or socioeconomic gaps evident for both men and women; socioeconomic inequalities were most pronounced for hand/arm pain, and least pronounced for back/neck pain. The magnitudes of the socioeconomic pain inequalities differed between countries, but were generally higher for women. CONCLUSIONS: Future strategies to reduce the burden of pain should acknowledge and consider the associated socioeconomic inequalities of pain to ensure the "pain gap" does not widen. SIGNIFICANCE: This is a pan European study that has explored socioeconomic inequalities in pain. Across Europe, pain is more prevalent in people of lower socioeconomic position; these pain inequalities were most significant for hand/arm pain, and least significant for back/neck pain.