ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Concurrent Validity of the Operationalization of High-Impact Pain Construct in the Health and Retirement Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Skill-Based Virtual Reality Therapy in High-Impact Chronic Pain: 2-Year Follow-Up Results From a Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- More Frequent Empathic Communication by Physical Therapists Is Associated With Improved Outcomes for Low-Impact Chronic Pain.Physical therapy · 2026Article
- High-impact pain predicts subjective cognitive decline and interacts with APOE4 genotype in the development of objective cognitive impairment.The journal of pain · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Chronic pain epidemiology is hindered by inconsistent definitions and methods. The US National Pain Strategy introduced high-impact chronic pain as a pain surveillance standard, defined as chronic pain that interferes with work or life activities. This study aimed to validate the operationalization of high-impact pain in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a large, nationally representative cohort of older adults. Patients and Methods: We analyzed data from the 2010 HRS pain module. High-impact pain was operationalized with two questions that have been fielded in the HRS since its inception. Pain intensity and pain-related disability were assessed using numeric rating scales and the Pain Disability Index (PDI). We used Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and logistic regressions to compare high- versus low-impact pain. Pain impact was also assessed at a 2-year follow-up in 2012. Results: Out of 508 participants, 335 (65.9%) reported high-impact pain. Those with high-impact pain had significantly higher pain-related disability (median PDI: 48 [33, 60] vs 19 [8, 36], P<0.0001), average pain intensity (median: 6 [4, 8] vs 5 [3, 6], P<0.0001) and were more likely to report chronic (OR: 1.75 [95% CI: 1.19, 2.58]) and constant (OR: 3.09 [1.93, 4.93]) pain. High-impact pain was associated with a relative risk of 1.80 (1.53, 2.11) for continued high-impact pain at a 2-year follow-up. Conclusion: The HRS operationalization of high-impact pain demonstrates strong concurrent validity with established measures of pain disability, intensity, and impact. The HRS provides a valuable tool for advancing pain research, particularly in aging populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.