A biopsychosocial approach assessing pain indicators among Black men

Introduction The lack of empirical evidence documenting the pain experience of Black men may be the result of social messaging that men are to project strength and avoid any expression of emotion or vulnerability. This avoidant behavior however, often comes too late when illnesses/symptoms are more aggressive and/or diagnosed at a later stage. This highlights two key issues - the willingness to acknowledge pain and wanting to seek medical attention when experiencing pain. Methods To better understand the pain experience in diverse raced and gendered groups, this secondary data analysis aimed to determine the influence identified physical, psychosocial, and behavioral health indicators have in reporting pain among Black men. Data were taken from a baseline sample of 321 Black men, >40 years old, who participated in the randomized, controlled Active & Healthy Brotherhood (AHB) project. Statistical models were calculated to determine which indicators (somatization, depression, anxiety, demographics, medical illnesses) were associated with pain reports. Results Results showed that 22% of the men reported pain for more than 30 days, with more than half of the sample being married (54%), employed (53%), and earning an income above the federal poverty level (76%). Multivariate analyses showed that those reporting pain were more likely to be unemployed, earn less income, and reported more medical conditions and somatization tendencies (OR=3.28, 95% CI (1.33, 8.06) compared to those who did not report pain. Discussion Findings from this study indicate that efforts are needed to identify the unique pain experiences of Black men, while recognizing its impact on their identities as a man, a person of color, and someone living with pain. This allows for more comprehensive assessments, treatment plans, and prevention approaches that may have beneficial impacts throughout the life course

Nonelective coronary artery bypass graft outcomes are adversely impacted by Coronavirus disease 2019 infection, but not altered processes of care: A National COVID Cohort Collaborative and National Surgery Quality Improvement Program analysisCentral MessagePerspective

Objective: The effects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and altered processes of care on nonelective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) outcomes remain unknown. We hypothesized that patients with COVID-19 infection would have longer hospital lengths of stay and greater mortality compared with COVID-negative patients, but that these outcomes would not differ between COVID-negative and pre-COVID controls. Methods: The National COVID Cohort Collaborative 2020-2022 was queried for adult patients undergoing CABG. Patients were divided into COVID-negative, COVID-active, and COVID-convalescent groups. Pre-COVID control patients were drawn from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Adjusted analysis of the 3 COVID groups was performed via generalized linear models. Results: A total of 17,293 patients underwent nonelective CABG, including 16,252 COVID-negative, 127 COVID-active, 367 COVID-convalescent, and 2254 pre-COVID patients. Compared to pre-COVID patients, COVID-negative patients had no difference in mortality, whereas COVID-active patients experienced increased mortality. Mortality and pneumonia were higher in COVID-active patients compared to COVID-negative and COVID-convalescent patients. Adjusted analysis demonstrated that COVID-active patients had higher in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality, and pneumonia compared to COVID-negative patients. COVID-convalescent patients had a shorter length of stay but a higher rate of renal impairment. Conclusions: Traditional care processes were altered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data show that nonelective CABG in patients with active COVID-19 is associated with significantly increased rates of mortality and pneumonia. The equivalent mortality in COVID-negative and pre-COVID patients suggests that pandemic-associated changes in processes of care did not impact CABG outcomes. Additional research into optimal timing of CABG after COVID infection is warranted