Cited by 34Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Placebo Effect

Exploring pain processing differences in Native Americans

Palit, Shreela, Kerr, Kara L., Kuhn, Bethany L., Terry, Ellen L., DelVentura, Jennifer L., Bartley, Emily J., Shadlow, Joanna O., Rhudy, Jamie L.·2013·Health Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1037/a0031057

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

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.
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