Seventeen-year national pain prevalence trends among U.S. military Veterans

Abstract: U.S. military veterans experience higher pain prevalence than nonveterans. However, it is unclear how the disparities in pain prevalence have changed over time because previous trend studies are limited to veterans using the Veterans Health Administration. This repeated cross-sectional study aimed to characterize pain prevalence trends in the overall population of U.S. veterans compared to nonveterans, using nationally-representative data. We analyzed 17 years of data from the National Health Interview Survey (2002-2018), with a mean annual unweighted sample of 29,802 U.S. adults (total unweighted n=506,639) and mean annual weighted population of 229.7 million noninstitutionalized adults. The weighted proportion of veterans ranged 11.48% in 2002 (highest) to 8.41% in 2017 (lowest). We found that veterans experience a similar or higher prevalence of pain than nonveterans across the study period, except for severe headache or migraine and facial pain. Pain prevalence among veterans increased over time, with a higher rate of increase compared to nonveterans for all pain variables. From 2002 to 2018 there was an absolute increase (95% CI) in pain prevalence among veterans (severe headache or migraine: 2.0% [1.6% to 2.4%]; facial pain: 1.9% [1.4% to 2.4%]; neck pain: 4.7% [4.1% to 5.2%]; joint pain: 11.4% [10.8% to 11.9%]; low back pain: 10.3% [9.5% to 11.1%]; any pain: 10.0% [9.6% to 10.4%]; and multiple pains: 9.9% [9.2% to 10.6%]. The continued pain prevalence increase among veterans may have implications for healthcare utilization, highlighting the need for improved pain prevention and care programs for this population with a disproportionate pain burden. PERSPECTIVE: This article uses routinely-collected cross-sectional data that are nationally-representative of U.S. adults to present changes in pain prevalence among military veterans compared to nonveterans. The findings underscore the need for improved prevention and pain care programs for veterans, who experienced a widening disproportionate pain burden from 2002 to 2018.

Read the full article
Report a problem with this article

Related articles

  • More for Researchers

    Examining the factor structure of the nine-item avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder screen in a national US military Veteran sample

    Abstract: Disordered eating is a prevalent and relevant health concern that remains understudied among U.S. military veterans. Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is a newly recognized feeding and eating disorder characterized by overly restrictive eating due to (a) picky eating, (b) lack of appetite, and (c) fear of aversive consequences related to eating. The Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) is a recently developed ARFID screening tool with initial validation studies demonstrating psychometric support. However, the psychometric properties of the NIAS have not been investigated in a veteran sample. To advance our understanding of ARFID screening tools that may be appropriate for use in veterans, the present study examined the factor structure of the NIAS using survey data from a large national sample of recently separated veterans (N = 1,486). Measurement invariance across key subgroups was tested in addition to exploring differential associations between the NIAS and related constructs. Results suggested that a three-factor model provided an excellent fit of the data and demonstrated scalar invariance across self-identified men and women, race and ethnicity, and sexual and gender minority (SGM) identity. Some subgroups had higher latent means on the picky eating (women, SGM, non-Hispanic Black), appetite (women, SGM), and fear (women) factors. The NIAS had some overlap with another measure of disordered eating and was moderately correlated with psychosocial impairment and mental health. Overall, the NIAS may be a useful screening tool for ARFID in veterans, given support for the three proposed subscales and equivalence across diverse identities.

    Mental Health Peer reviewed