Exploring pain processing differences in Native Americans
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several chronic pain conditions are more prevalent in Native Americans than in any other group in the United States; however, little has been done to identify factors contributing to this disparity. The study presented here was designed to examine whether there were pain processing differences in Native Americans relative to non-Hispanic White controls. METHODS: Participants were healthy, pain-free Native Americans (n = 22, 8 females) and non-Hispanic Whites (n = 20, 7 females). Pain processing was assessed from electric pain threshold/tolerance, ischemia pain threshold/tolerance, nociceptive flexion reflex threshold (NFR; an electrophysiological measure of spinal nociception), pain ratings of suprathreshold electric stimuli, and temporal summation of pain and NFR (an electrophysiological measure of spinal cord sensitization). The institutional review board approved all procedures. RESULTS: Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Native Americans had dampened pain perception (higher ischemia pain tolerance, higher electric pain threshold, lower ratings of electric stimuli). Additionally, temporal summation of NFR was reduced in Native Americans, suggesting sensitization was reduced at the spinal level. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest Native Americans have dampened pain and pain signaling, perhaps due to overactivation of descending pain inhibition mechanisms. Given research indicating that other ethnic groups at risk for chronic pain (e.g., African Americans) show enhanced pain and enhanced central sensitization on experimental pain measures, chronic pain risk could be different for Native Americans, thus emphasizing the need for different treatment interventions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reinterpreting pain sensations shows weak correlations with functional variables such as pain interference and physical disability.
“it shows weak correlations with functional variables such as pain interference and physical disability 281, 284–287.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [287]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 34
- Authors
- Palit, S., Kerr, K. L., Kuhn, B. L., Terry, E. L., DelVentura, J. L., Bartley, E. J., Shadlow, J. O., & Rhudy, J. L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Health Psychology
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1127-1136
- ISSN
- 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-7810
- OpenAlex
- W2149088892
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Psi Chi
- University of Tulsa
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Keywords
- Native Americans, pain processing, chronic pain, ethnic disparities, nociceptive flexion reflex, temporal summation, central sensitization, descending pain inhibition
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Indians, North American, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, United States, Case-Control Studies, Pain Threshold, White People, Chronic Pain
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review