Cited by 38Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationChronic Disease Management StrategiesMental Health Treatment and Access

The impact of comorbid pain and depression in the United States: results from a nationally representative survey

Dhanju, Simranpal, Kennedy, Sidney H., Abbey, Susan, Katz, Joel, Weinrib, Aliza, Clarke, Hance, Bhat, Venkat, Ladha, Karim·2019·Scandinavian Journal of Pain

Abstract

Background and aims: The co-morbidity between pain and depression is a target of interest for treatment. However most of the published literature on the topic has used clinical cohorts as the population of interest. The goal of this study was to use a nationally representative sample to explore how health outcomes varied across pain and depression status in a cohort sampled from the general US population. Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis of adults ≥18 years in the 2009–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The cohort was stratified into: no pain/depression, pain alone, depression alone, and pain with depression. The primary outcome was self-reported general health status, and secondary outcomes were healthcare visits, overnight hospital stays and functional limitation. Survey weighted logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. Results: The cohort consisted of 4,213 individuals, of which 186 (4.4%) reported concurrent pain and depression. 597 (14.2%) and 253 (6.0%) were classified with either pain or depression alone, respectively. The majority of individuals with co-morbid pain and depression reported poor health (65.1%, p <0.001) and were significantly more likely than those with neither condition to rate their health as poor after adjustment (OR: 7.77, 95% CI: 4.24–14.26, p <0.001). Those with pain only or depression only were also more likely to rate their health as poor, albeit to a lesser extent (OR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.21–2.34, p <0.001; OR: 3.75, 95% CI: 2.54–5.54, p <0.001, respectively). A similar pattern was noted across all secondary outcomes. Most notably, those with co-morbid pain and depression were the most likely to endorse functional limitation (OR: 13.15, 95% CI: 8.00–21.61, p <0.001). Comparatively, a similar trend was noted amongst those with pain only or depression only, though with a reduced effect size (OR: 4.23, 95% CI: 3.12–4.77, p <0.001; OR: 5.13, 95% CI: 3.38–7.82, p <0.001). Conclusions: Co-morbid pain and depression in the general population resulted in markedly worse outcomes versus isolated pain or depression. Further, the effect appears to be synergistic. Given the substantial burdens of pain and depression, future treatments should aim to address both conditions simultaneously. Implications: As a result of the co-morbidity between pain and depression, patients presenting with either condition should increase the index of suspicion among clinicians and prompt screening for the reciprocal condition. Early intervention for co-morbid pain and depression has the potential to mitigate future incidence of chronic pain and major depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/sjpain-2018-0323

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 38

Authors
Dhanju, S., Kennedy, S. H., Abbey, S., Katz, J., Weinrib, A., Clarke, H., Bhat, V., & Ladha, K.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Ladha, Karim
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Published
2019-02-13
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
319-325
ISSN
  • 1877-8860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1877-8879
OpenAlex
W2913254245
Cited by
38
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
chronic pain, depression, comorbidities, health status, functional limitations, medical visits, hospitalization, health outcomes, NHANES, United States adults, self-rated health, health care utilization, socioeconomic status, health insurance, health care costs, quality of care
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, United States, Cohort Studies, Comorbidity, Incidence, 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