Home Medicine Pediatric chronic pain and caregiver burden in a national survey
Article Publicly Available

Pediatric chronic pain and caregiver burden in a national survey

  • Hannah Datz , Dmitry Tumin EMAIL logo , Rebecca Miller , Timothy P. Smith , Tarun Bhalla and Joseph D. Tobias
Published/Copyright: September 21, 2018
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Background and aims

Caring for children with chronic pain incurs burdens of cost and time for families. We aimed to describe variation in caregiver burden among parents of adolescents with chronic pain who responded to a nationally-representative survey. Our secondary aim was to identify child and parent characteristics associated with increased caregiver burden.

Methods

We used de-identified, publicly-available data from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH), designed to be representative of non-institutionalized children in the United States. We analyzed data for households where an adolescent age 12–17 years old was reported by a parent to have chronic pain. Outcomes included the parent’s time spent on the child’s health needs, reduced labor force participation, and out-of-pocket medical costs.

Results

Data on 1,711 adolescents were analyzed. For adolescents with chronic pain, 15% of parents reported spending at least 1 h/week on their child’s health care, 14% reported cutting back on paid work, and 36% reported spending ≥$500 on their child’s health care in the past 12 months. Adolescents’ general health status and extent of specialized health care needs predicted increased caregiver burden across the three measures. Conversely, no consistent differences in caregiver burden were noted according to demographic or socioeconomic characteristics.

Conclusions

Among adolescents with chronic pain identified on a nationally-representative survey, parents frequently reported reducing work participation and incurring out-of-pocket expenses in providing health care for their child. Caregiver burdens increased with indicators of greater medical complexity (e.g. presence of comorbidities, need for specialized health care) and poorer overall adolescent health status.

Implications

We add a national-level perspective to studies previously performed in clinical samples addressing caregiver burden in pediatric chronic pain. Initiatives to reduce the burden of caring for children with chronic pain, described in prior work, may be especially beneficial for families with adolescents whose chronic pain is accompanied by other health problems or requires coordination of care among multiple providers.

1 Introduction

Pediatric chronic pain is characterized as pain which persists or recurs over 3 or more months, and is associated with adverse outcomes such as decreased functional status and high rates of emergency care utilization [1]. Previous studies have differed in the estimated incidence of of pediatric chronic pain, varying from 3% to 46% [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Our group’s recent analysis of a nationally representative survey suggests that 6% of children experience functional difficulties due to chronic pain, with a higher prevalence among adolescents and children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families [1]. In addition to physical impairment, pediatric chronic pain has been associated with negative emotional, social and academic outcomes [7], [8].

Due to these consequences, parents of children with chronic pain may experience additional caregiver burdens as they manage their child’s chronic pain and associated comorbidities. For example, parents are responsible for transporting their children to appointments as well as attending most appointments and paying for health care costs that are not covered by insurance [9]. Furthermore, parents are responsible for educating themselves about their child’s condition and available treatment options. These responsibilities can contribute to parents’ reduced quality of life, emotional difficulties, out-of-pocket cost, and reduced participation in the labor force [10], [11]. Prior studies have reported that parents of children with chronic pain have significant caregiver burdens [1], [9]. Several studies have sought to determine which caregivers are especially at risk. Factors that may predict increased caregiver burden include lack of control over the child’s pain, type and level of pain, increased dependence on caregivers, limited access to interventional resources, and the child’s age and gender [10], [12], [13], [14], [15]. However, prior research in this area has generally been limited by the inclusion of families seen at a single institution, whereas nationally representative and generalizable data on caregiver burden among children with chronic pain remain scarce. Identifying families for whom a child’s chronic pain imposes significant caregiver burden may help target these families for interventions that alleviate caregiver distress [13], [14]. Addressing caregiver burden may also improve parents’ efficacy at managing their children’s chronic pain.

To better understand caregiver burden in families where a child has chronic pain, we performed a secondary analysis of the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). Our primary aim was to provide population estimates of caregiver burden by measuring time use, reduced labor force participation, and out-of-pocket cost among parents of adolescents with chronic pain. Our secondary aim was to identify child and caregiver factors associated with increased caregiver burden.

2 Methods

The study was deemed exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board at Nationwide Children’s Hospital. We used de-identified, publicly-available data from the 2016 NSCH, a nationally representative cross-sectional paper and web survey directed by the US Health Resources and Services Administration [16]. The survey screened households to identify eligible children ages 0–17 years and randomly selected one child per household about whom an adult caregiver completed a detailed questionnaire. Survey weights were provided to allow generalization to the relevant national population; in this case, the subpopulation of children with chronic pain. We have previously used the 2016 NSCH data to describe the prevalence of chronic pain and differences in health care utilization and costs between children with and without chronic pain [1]. As chronic pain was most commonly reported in adolescents, we limited the present study to adolescents ages 12–17 years who had chronic pain (defined as repeated or chronic physical pain, including headaches or other back or body pain during the past 12 months). We included children with complete data on caregiver burden outcomes and study covariates, as described further below. To assure comparability of reported caregiver burden across respondents, we excluded children whose caregiver completing the survey was not one of the child’s parents.

We examined three dimensions of caregiver burden, according to outcomes emphasized in prior research and the availability of appropriate data in the NSCH. These included: (1) total time spent providing or coordinating health care for the child in an average week (including time spent by other family members); (2) reduced labor force participation (whether the parent or other family members stopped working or cut down on hours worked because of their child’s health); and (3) out-of-pocket costs associated with the child’s health care for during the past 12 months. Time use and reduced labor force participation were examined as binary measures. The time use measure was categorized as spending at least 1 h per week on either providing or coordinating health care, vs. spending <1 h per week on both types of activities. Costs were analyzed as an ordinal measure, categorized as $0, $1–$249, $250–$499, $500–$999, $1,000–$5,000, and >$5,000. For each measure of caregiver burden, we sought to determine if it was associated with the adolescent’s health status and health care needs; demographic characteristics; and socioeconomic status (SES).

Adolescents’ demographic characteristics included age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Family demographic characteristics included parent age, gender, and marital status; language spoken in the home; and the state of residence. SES measures included the adolescent’s health insurance coverage, family income in the last calendar year [percent of the Federal poverty line (FPL)], parents’ highest level of educational attainment, and whether the household experienced food insecurity, defined as sometimes or often being unable to afford enough food to eat. Adolescent health characteristics included general health (from 1=excellent to 5=poor); special health care needs (SHCN) status, defined as requiring health services beyond those required by children generally [17]; a history of emergency department visits in the past 12 months; and need for coordination of care between multiple providers [18]. Adolescents were classified as requiring care coordination if the parent reported that someone helped them coordinate care among different doctors, or that they felt they could use extra help coordinating their child’s care. We also controlled for comorbidities present at the time of the survey. Specific physical conditions included allergies and asthma; while specific mental health conditions included anxiety, depression, behavioral or conduct problems, developmental delay, speech disorder, learning disability, autism, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Non-specific conditions and conditions present in <5% of the sample were grouped together as other physical conditions or other mental health conditions [1].

2.1 Statistical analysis

Adolescent and parent characteristics were summarized using weighted percentages or weighted means with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate characteristics associated with each measure of caregiver burden. Time use and labor force participation were modeled using binomial logistic regression, while out-of-pocket costs associated with the adolescent’s health care were modeled using ordered logistic regression. Analyses were weighted to account for unequal probability of sample selection, and standard errors were adjusted for the complex survey design, as described in the NSCH documentation [16]. Data analysis was performed in Stata/IC 14.2 (College Station, TX, USA: StataCorp, LP), and two-tailed p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3 Results

The 2016 NSCH sample included 2,262 adolescents age 12–17 with chronic pain. We excluded 250 surveys completed by someone other than a parent, 64 surveys missing data on study outcomes, and 237 surveys missing data on study covariates. The remaining responses represented 1,711 adolescents. In 258 cases, parents reported spending at least 1 h/week on their child’s health care (weighted percentage: 15%), in 214 cases, parents reported reduced labor force participation (14%), and in 802 cases, parents reported spending ≥$500 on their child’s health care in the past 12 months (36%; Table 1). Weighted estimates based on the NSCH sample suggested that adolescents with chronic pain were 61% female, 11% African American, and 27% Hispanic. Twenty-seven percent were living in households below the poverty line. Adolescents with chronic pain generally had high needs for health care, as evidenced by approximately half (48%) meeting the definition for SHCN, 33% having visited the ED in the past 12 months, and a majority (56%) requiring coordination of care between multiple physicians or services. The most common physical comorbidities were allergies (42%) and asthma (20%). The most common mental health conditions were anxiety (27%), depression (18%), and ADHD (18%).

Table 1:

Child, caregiver, and family characteristics among adolescents age 12–17 with chronic pain (n=1,711).

Characteristics Weighted proportions or means (95% CI)
Outcomes
 Caregiver labor force reduction 0.14 (0.11, 0.18)
 Spends at least 1 h on child’s healthcare in average week 0.15 (0.12, 0.18)
 Out-of-pocket health care costs
  $0 0.31 (0.26, 0.36)
  $1–249 0.16 (0.13, 0.20)
  $250–499 0.16 (0.13, 0.20)
  $500–999 0.15 (0.11, 0.20)
  $1,000–5,000 0.17 (0.14, 0.21)
  ≥$5,000 0.04 (0.03, 0.06)
Child characteristics
  Agea 15 (15, 15)
  Female gender 0.61 (0.56, 0.66)
  Race
   Caucasian 0.55 (0.49, 0.61)
   African-American 0.11 (0.08, 0.14)
   Hispanic 0.27 (0.21, 0.34)
   Other 0.07 (0.06, 0.09)
  Insurance coverage
   Private 0.55 (0.49, 0.60)
   Public 0.33 (0.28, 0.38)
   Other 0.12 (0.09, 0.17)
  Health status
   Excellent 0.28 (0.23, 0.34)
   Very good 0.37 (0.32, 0.42)
   Good 0.26 (0.21, 0.31)
   Fair or poor 0.09 (0.07, 0.13)
   Special health care needs 0.48 (0.43, 0.53)
  ED visits in the past 12 months
   No visits 0.67 (0.61, 0.72)
   1 visit 0.22 (0.17, 0.28)
   2 or more visits 0.11 (0.08, 0.14)
  Requires care coordination 0.56 (0.51, 0.61)
  Comorbidities
   Allergies 0.42 (0.36, 0.47)
   Asthma 0.20 (0.16, 0.25)
   Other physical conditions 0.19 (0.16, 0.23)
   Anxiety 0.27 (0.23, 0.32)
   Depression 0.18 (0.14, 0.22)
   Behavioral or conduct problems 0.14 (0.11, 0.18)
   Developmental delay 0.07 (0.05, 0.10)
   Speech disorder 0.05 (0.03, 0.07)
   Learning disability 0.13 (0.10, 0.16)
   Autism 0.05 (0.03, 0.07)
   ADHD 0.18 (0.15, 0.22)
   Other mental conditions 0.13 (0.10, 0.16)
Caregiver characteristics
  Agea 45 (44, 46)
  Female 0.82 (0.78, 0.85)
  Not married 0.34 (0.30, 0.39)
Family characteristics
  Primary language not English 0.12 (0.08, 0.17)
  Household income
   0–99% FPL 0.27 (0.21, 0.33)
   100–199% FPL 0.23 (0.18, 0.28)
   200–399% FPL 0.27 (0.23, 0.32)
   ≥400% FPL 0.23 (0.20, 0.27)
 Parents’ highest level of education
   Less than high school 0.12 (0.08, 0.17)
   High school only 0.54 (0.48, 0.59)
   Bachelor’s degree 0.18 (0.15, 0.21)
   Graduate or professional degree 0.16 (0.14, 0.19)
 Food scarcity 0.13 (0.10, 0.18)
  1. aReported value is weighted mean.

  2. CI=confidence interval.

The multivariable models of study outcomes are shown in Tables 24. Parents of adolescents with greater health care needs reported greater time spent on their child’s health care. For example, caregivers were more likely to spend at least 1 h/week on their child’s health care if they reported their child’s health status as fair or poor [odds ratio (OR)=7.5; 95% CI: 2.5, 23.0], if their child had SHCN (OR=5.7; 95% CI: 2.3, 14.2), or if their child required care coordination (OR=2.2; 95% CI: 1.2, 4.0). Adolescents’ fair or poor health status was also associated with a greater likelihood of family members reducing labor force participation to care for the child. However, measures of adolescents’ health status and medical complexity were not consistently associated with reporting higher out-of-pocket costs. For example, reported out-of-pocket costs tended to be higher for children who have recently visited the ED (comparing one visit to none), but were surprisingly lower among adolescents who needed coordination of care between multiple providers.

Table 2:

Binomial logistic regression of caregiver spending at least 1 h on the child’s health care in an average week (n=1,711).

Characteristicsa OR 95% CI p-Value
Child
 Age 1.0 (0.8, 1.1) 0.615
 Female 0.9 (0.5, 1.7) 0.758
 Race
  Caucasian Ref.
  African American 1.7 (0.6, 4.7) 0.290
  Hispanic 1.4 (0.6, 3.6) 0.463
  Other 0.5 (0.1, 1.6) 0.238
 Insurance coverage
  Private Ref.
  Public 2.1 (0.9, 4.8) 0.078
  Other 0.6 (0.2, 1.7) 0.350
 Health status
  Excellent Ref.
  Very good 1.0 (0.4, 2.3) 0.999
  Good 2.3 (0.9, 5.5) 0.070
  Fair or poor 7.5 (2.5, 23.0) <0.001
 Special health care needs 5.7 (2.3, 14.2) <0.001
 ED visits in the past 12 months
  No visits Ref.
  1 visit 2.5 (1.2, 5.0) 0.010
  2 or more visits 2.0 (0.8, 4.9) 0.116
 Requires care coordination 2.2 (1.2, 4.0) 0.007
 Comorbidities
  Allergies 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) 0.852
  Asthma 1.0 (0.5, 2.1) 0.987
  Other physical conditions 3.3 (1.7, 6.5) 0.001
  Anxiety 2.4 (1.2, 5.0) 0.016
  Depression 2.7 (1.3, 5.5) 0.008
  Behavioral or conduct problems 1.2 (0.5, 2.8) 0.728
  Developmental delay 2.8 (0.9, 8.1) 0.064
  Speech disorder 3.6 (1.3, 10.2) 0.014
  Learning disability 0.4 (0.1, 1.3) 0.121
  Autism 0.7 (0.2, 2.4) 0.566
  ADHD 1.5 (0.7, 3.4) 0.314
  Other mental conditions 1.4 (0.7, 3.2) 0.423
Caregiver
 Age 1.0 (0.9, 1.02) 0.304
 Female gender 0.3 (0.2, 0.7) 0.006
 Not married 0.9 (0.5, 1.7) 0.819
Family
 Primary language not English 2.7 (0.7, 10.5) 0.162
 Household income
  0–99% FPL Ref.
  100–199% FPL 1.0 (0.4, 2.3) 0.969
  200–399% FPL 1.4 (0.6, 3.2) 0.433
  ≥400% FPL 1.1 (0.4, 3.2) 0.901
 Parents’ highest level of education
  Less than high school 0.2 (0.05, 0.6) 0.009
  High school only Ref.
  Bachelor’s degree 1.1 (0.4, 2.7) 0.907
  Graduate or professional degree 2.7 (1.2, 6.0) 0.013
 Food scarcity 3.2 (1.4, 7.5) 0.007
  1. aAlso adjusted for state of residence, not shown.

  2. ADHD=attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CI=confidence interval; ED=emergency department; FPL=federal poverty line; OR=odds ratio.

Table 3:

Binomial logistic regression of caregiver’s reduced labor force participation (n=1,711).

Characteristicsa OR 95% CI p-Value
Child
 Age 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) 0.403
 Female gender 0.4 (0.2, 0.8) 0.007
 Race
  Caucasian Ref.
  African American 0.5 (0.1, 1.4) 0.182
  Hispanic 0.9 (0.3, 2.6) 0.887
  Other 0.4 (0.2, 1.2) 0.120
 Insurance coverage
  Private Ref.
  Public 0.7 (0.3, 1.6) 0.372
  Other 0.2 (0.1, 0.7) 0.008
 Health status
  Excellent Ref.
  Very good 1.1 (0.5, 2.4) 0.734
  Good 1.9 (0.7, 4.8) 0.191
  Fair or poor 4.2 (1.4, 12.6) 0.011
 Special health care needs 1.3 (0.6, 2.8) 0.496
 ED visits in the past 12 months
  No visits Ref.
  1 visit 3.7 (1.8, 7.4) <0.001
  2 or more visits 4.9 (2.5, 9.8) <0.001
 Requires care coordination 1.8 1.01, 3.3) 0.044
 Comorbidities
  Allergies 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) 0.672
  Asthma 1.5 (0.7, 3.2) 0.319
  Other physical conditions 1.9 (1.0, 3.8) 0.068
  Anxiety 3.7 (1.9, 7.4) <0.001
  Depression 3.1 (1.5, 6.6) 0.003
  Behavioral or conduct problems 3.0 (1.2, 7.8) 0.023
  Developmental delay 5.6 (1.4, 22.1) 0.013
  Speech disorder 0.6 (0.2, 2.5) 0.511
  Learning disability 1.0 (0.4, 2.6) 0.959
  Autism 0.5 (0.2, 2.0) 0.366
  ADHD 0.3 0.1, 0.6) 0.002
  Other mental conditions 1.6 (0.7, 3.7) 0.273
Caregiver
 Age 0.9 (0.9, 0.98) 0.006
 Female gender 0.8 (0.3, 1.9) 0.628
 Not married 2.6 (1.5, 4.6) 0.001
Family
 Primary language not English 17.6 (5.3, 57.9) <0.001
 Household income
  0–99% FPL Ref.
  100–199% FPL 0.9 (0.3, 2.4) 0.867
  200–399% FPL 2.8 (1.1, 7.2) 0.028
  ≥400% FPL 1.5 (0.5, 4.1) 0.470
 Parents’ highest level of education
  Less than high school 0.6 (0.2, 1.8) 0.333
  High school only Ref.
  Bachelor’s degree 1.5 (0.6, 3.9) 0.353
  Graduate or professional degree 2.5 (1.02, 6.3) 0.045
 Food scarcity 1.1 (0.5, 2.7) 0.789
  1. aAlso adjusted for state of residence, not shown.

  2. ADHD=attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CI=confidence interval; ED=emergency department; FPL=federal poverty line; OR=odds ratio.

Table 4:

Ordered logistic regression of out-of-pocket costs associated with the child’s health care over the past 12 months (n=1,711).

Characteristicsa OR 95% CI p-Value
Child
 Age 1.1 (0.9, 1.2) 0.306
 Female gender 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) 0.403
 Race
  Caucasian Ref.
  African American 0.3 (0.1, 0.6) 0.001
  Hispanic 1.4 (0.7, 2.6) 0.349
  Other 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) 0.013
 Insurance coverage
  Private Ref.
  Public 0.05 (0.03, 0.09) <0.001
  Other 0.5 (0.3, 0.8) 0.004
 Health status
  Excellent Ref.
  Very good 1.2 (0.8, 1.8) 0.292
  Good 1.9 (1.1, 3.3) 0.018
  Fair or poor 1.1 (0.3, 3.6) 0.919
 Special health care needs 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) 0.236
 ED visits in the past 12 months
  No visits Ref.
  1 visit 2.1 (1.4, 3.1) <0.001
  2 or more visits 1.4 (0.7, 2.8) 0.340
 Requires care coordination 0.6 (0.5, 0.9) 0.014
 Comorbidities
  Allergies 1.5 (1.0, 2.3) 0.063
  Asthma 0.8 (0.4, 1.4) 0.366
  Other physical conditions 1.7 (1.0, 2.9) 0.057
  Anxiety 1.5 (0.9, 2.6) 0.158
  Depression 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) 0.782
  Behavioral or conduct problems 1.0 (0.6, 1.8) 0.978
  Developmental delay 0.8 (0.4, 1.8) 0.600
  Speech disorder 0.5 (0.2, 1.2) 0.109
  Learning disability 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) 0.786
  Autism 0.6 (0.3, 1.5) 0.304
  ADHD 0.7 (0.4, 1.1) 0.108
  Other mental conditions 1.7 (1.05, 2.7) 0.030
Caregiver
 Age 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) 0.406
 Female gender 1.6 (1.002, 2.7) 0.049
 Not married 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) 0.611
Family
 Primary language not English 1.0 (0.3, 2.9) 0.999
 Household income
  0–99% FPL Ref.
  100–199% FPL 1.8 (1.0, 3.4) 0.063
  200–399% FPL 1.8 (1.008, 3.1) 0.047
  ≥400% FPL 2.0 (1.02, 3.8) 0.043
 Parents’ highest level of education
  Less than high school 0.3 (0.1, 1.2) 0.087
  High school only Ref.
  Bachelor’s degree 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) 0.187
  Graduate or professional degree 1.6 (1.0, 2.7) 0.068
Food scarcity 0.8 (0.4, 1.6) 0.014
  1. aAlso adjusted for state of residence, not shown

  2. ADHD=attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CI=confidence interval; ED=emergency department; FPL=federal poverty line; OR=odds ratio.

Considering demographic characteristics, these were not associated with time spent on health care; although younger parents, parents who were not married, and parents who spoke a language other than English were more likely to report reduced labor force participation. Parents of girls with chronic pain were less likely to report reduced labor force participation as compared to parents of boys (OR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.2, 0.8), and parents of African American adolescents with chronic pain reported lower out-of-pocket costs as compared to parents of Caucasian adolescents. Socioeconomic differences were inconsistent between outcomes of caregiver burden or measures of SES. For example, spending at least 1 h/week on the adolescent’s health care was more common among parents with a graduate or professional degree (OR=2.7; 95% CI: 1.2, 6.0), but also among parents reporting food scarcity in the household (OR=3.2; 95% CI: 1.4, 7.5). By several measures of SES, parents in advantaged families were more likely to report reducing their labor participation (e.g. if they had a graduate or professional degree, or if they had a household income of 200–399% as compared to <100% FPL). Parents with higher income and private insurance also reported higher out-of-pocket costs associated with the child’s health care.

4 Discussion

Caregiver burden is a recognized challenge for families with children who have health problems or SHCN [19], [20], [21]. Caring for children with chronic pain can be particularly stressful because pediatric chronic pain is frequently associated with diagnostic uncertainty and a lack of care options [22]. Our analysis of data from a national survey indicates that on measures of time, cost, and out-of-pocket expenses, parents of adolescents with chronic pain incur significant caregiver burden. Furthermore, greater burdens are found among parents of adolescents with worse overall health status and greater health care-related needs. Conversely, SES and demographic differences in caregiver burden are inconsistent within this population, reveal no clear disparity in caregiver burden for economically disadvantaged families, and do not offer clear targets for intervention. Given the high levels of caregiver burden and high needs for care coordination or special health care services among adolescents in this study, coordination of chronic pain treatment with other services may provide an opportunity to better support the families of children with chronic pain.

In a previous study, parents described the pain their child experiences as unbearable, and mentioned consequent restrictions on their social life, including loss of personal time, missed work, and significant economic burden related to physician contacts, medication use, and hospitalizations [23]. Another study found that 65% of employed parents of children with chronic pain reported work absenteeism and 22% reported high or very high financial burden during the past 6 months [12]. These results may have been representative of children seen by specialized pain clinics, whereas our analysis suggests caregiver burden is also common among parents of adolescents with chronic pain recruited to participate in a population-based survey. In this sample, caregiver burden was highest among parents of children with significant morbidity or health care needs. While this association may have been partially due to other comorbidities or disabilities among adolescents with chronic pain, it may also be related to under-treatment of chronic pain and greater resulting impairment in adolescents’ functioning. Therefore, measuring improvement in caregiver burden may be an important outcome in future studies evaluating interventions to treat adolescent chronic pain. Furthermore, high levels of caregiver burden seen among adolescents with chronic pain suggest that long-term outcomes for both patients and families are likely to depend on the quality of care received for chronic pain at this stage of the life course.

Prior studies have reported specific demographic and socioeconomic disparities in the extent of caregiver burden among parents of children with chronic pain. In one previous study, caregiver burden was greater for parents of older children (school-age and teenage) [10]. Our study of adolescents did not find a consistent correlation between the child’s age or gender and increased caregiver burden. On the labor force participation measure, our analysis showed that parents of a girl with chronic pain were in fact less likely to reduce work participation than parents of a boy with chronic pain. Considering SES, one study found that families with lower SES experienced decreased caregiver burden in terms of disturbance in family interaction as compared to those above poverty line [21]. However other previous studies have reported that parents with lower SES experience increased caregiver burden [19], [20]. We found no consistent association between socioeconomic disadvantage and caregiver burden; on the contrary, parents with higher income or educational attainment reported lower labor force participation and higher out-of-pocket costs, related to providing health care for adolescents with chronic pain. It is important to note that the NSCH measure of labor force participation may be biased towards voluntary reduction in work hours or job resignation, whereas involuntary unemployment is plausibly more common among parents of lower SES who have a child with chronic pain.

Specific interventions may reduce caregiver burden for parents of children with chronic pain. Referral to a multidisciplinary chronic pain clinic can improve management of chronic pain in children whose pain is not adequately managed by primary or specialty care providers [24], [25]. Several evaluations of multidisciplinary pain clinics have reported favorable effects on reducing caregiver burden [26]. Additional considerations include providing families with more detailed preparatory information, coping strategies, and psychosocial intervention to address pediatric chronic pain and associated caregiver burden [13]. In another study, Internet-delivered cognitive-behavior therapy for families of children with chronic pain led to reductions in parental depression, anxiety, self-blame about their adolescent’s pain, and in their maladaptive behavioral responses to their adolescent’s pain [14]. Additionally, addressing the need for care coordination among parents of children with chronic pain may also be beneficial. Particularly, care coordination for adolescents with chronic pain could include coordination of specialized pain treatment with other services used by these children, given that over half of adolescents in this population require coordination of care between multiple providers. Our results regarding factors associated with caregiver burden suggest that such initiatives could be most beneficial for adolescents with chronic pain who have worse overall health and greater health care needs.

The conclusions from our study are limited by some aspects of the data set and analytic approach. We were unable to account for all factors that may predict increased caregiver burden in pediatric chronic pain, including parents’ perceived control over the child’s pain, the type and severity of pain, and limited access to interventional resources [10], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Additionally, we have used a relatively restrictive definition of chronic pain, which applies to only 6% of children in the United States [1]. When considering previous studies that have used more expansive definitions of chronic pain, our results may not be representative of adolescents whose pain was less severe or did not cause functional difficulty [2]. A further limitation in our analysis relates to the wording of questions about caregiver burden, which included time use and costs incurred by anyone in the family caring for the adolescent with chronic pain, and were not specifically limited to the parent answering the survey. In our statistical analysis, we applied survey weights to obtain nationally representative estimates, but it should be noted that due to the design of the NSCH, these estimates are meant to be representative of the population of adolescents with chronic pain, and might not be representative of the total population of adults who care for these adolescents [19]. Future studies on the epidemiology of pediatric chronic pain may combine the NSCH’s population-based design with more detailed measurements of pain characteristics and access to pain treatment, to identify families in which caregiver burden associated with pediatric chronic pain could be successfully alleviated through improved pain management and increased access to health care resources.

In summary, we analyzed nationally-representative survey data to describe high levels of health care needs and caregiver burden among adolescents with chronic pain in the United States. Adolescent health status and health care needs were associated with increased caregiver burden as reported by their parents; whereas no consistent association was found between caregiver burden and demographic factors or socioeconomic disadvantage. Recognizing families in which pediatric chronic pain may impose significant caregiver burden could aid the health care team in addressing parents’ needs in alleviating distress, maintaining their own quality of life, and providing effective care to a child with chronic pain.


*Corresponding author: Dmitry Tumin, PhD, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 700 Children’s Drive, Columbus, OH 43205, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; and Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State Unviersity, Columbus, OH, USA, Phone: +1 (614) 722-2675, Fax: +1 (614) 722-4203

  1. Authors’ statements

  2. Research funding: None for all authors.

  3. Conflict of interest: None for all authors.

  4. Informed consent: Not obtained for this secondary analysis of public data.

  5. Ethical approval: Study deemed exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board at Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

References

[1] Tumin D, Drees D, Miller R, Wrona S, Hayes D, Tobias JD, Bhalla T. Health care utilization and costs associated with pediatric chronic pain. J Pain 2018;19:973–82.10.1016/j.jpain.2018.03.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] King S, Chambers CT, Huguet A, MacNevin RC, McGrath PJ, Parker L, MacDonald AJ. The epidemiology of chronic pain in children and adolescents revisited: a systematic review. Pain 2011;152:2729–38.10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.016Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Palermo T, Eccleston C, Goldschneider K, McGinn KL, Sethna N, Schechter N, Turner H. Assessment and management of children with chronic pain, a position statement from the American Pain Society. Available at: http://americanpainsociety.org/uploads/get-involved/pediatric-chronic-pain-statement.pdf. Accessed: 15 Jun 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Stanford EA, Chambers CT, Biesanz JC, Chen E. The frequency, trajectories and predictors of adolescent recurrent pain: a population-based approach. Pain 2008;138:11–21.10.1016/j.pain.2007.10.032Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Huguet A, Miro J. The severity of chronic paediatric pain: an epidemiological study. J Pain 2008;9:226–36.10.1016/j.jpain.2007.10.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Brna P, Dooley J, Gordon K, Dewan T. The prognosis of childhood headache: a 20-year follow-up. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:1157–60.10.1001/archpedi.159.12.1157Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Geraghty ME, Buse DC. The biopsychosocial spiritual impact of chronic pain, chronic illness, and physical disabilities in adolescence. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2015;19:51.10.1007/s11916-015-0526-8Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Perquin CW, Hazebroek-Kampschreur AA, Hunfield JA, Bohnen AM, van Suijlekom-Smit LW, Passchier J, van der Wouden JC. Pain in children and adolescents: a common experience. Pain 2000;87:51–8.10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00269-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Ruhe A, Wager J, Schmidt P, Zernikow B. Economic effects of chronic pain in childhood and adolescence. Self-assessment of health care costs for affected families before and after a multidisciplinary inpatient pain therapy. Schmerz 2013;27:577–87.10.1007/s00482-013-1374-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Matziou V, Vlachioti E, Megapanou E, Ntoumou A, Dionisakopoulou C, Dimitriou V, Tsoumakas K, Matziou T, Perdikaris P. Perceptions of children and their parents about the pain experienced during their hospitalization and its impact on parents’ quality of life. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2016;46:862–70.10.1093/jjco/hyw074Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Groenewald CB, Essner BS, Wright D, Fesinmeyer MD, Palermo TM. The economic costs of chronic pain among a cohort of treatment-seeking adolescents in the United States. J Pain 2014;15:925–33.10.1016/j.jpain.2014.06.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Hechler T, Ruhe AK, Schmidt P, Hirsh J, Wager J, Dobe M, Krummenauer F, Zernikow B. Inpatient-based intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment for highly impaired children with severe chronic pain: randomized controlled trial of efficacy and economic effects. Pain 2014;155:118–28.10.1016/j.pain.2013.09.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Rabbitts JA, Aaron RV, Fisher E, Lang EA, Bridgwater C, Tai GG, Palermo TM. Long-term pain and recovery after major pediatric surgery; a qualitative study with teens, parents, and perioperative care providers. J Pain 2017;18:778–86.10.1016/j.jpain.2017.02.423Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[14] Palermo TM, Law EF, Fales J, Bromberg MH, Jessen-Fiddick T, Tai G. Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral treatment for adolescents with chronic pain and their parents. Pain 2016;157:174–85.10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000348Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] Haraldstad K, Sørum R, Eide H, Natvig GK, Helseth S. Pain in children and adolescents: prevalence, impact on daily life, and parents’ perception: a school survey. Scand J Caring Sci 2011;25:27–36.10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00785.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Health Resources & Services Administration. Questionnaires, datasets, and supporting documents. Available at: https://mchb.hrsa.gov/data/national-surveys/questionnaires-datasets-supporting-documents. Accessed: 11 Jun 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[17] McPherson M, Arango P, Fox H, Lauver C, McManus M, Newacheck PW, Perrin JM, Shonkoff JP, Strickland B. A new definition of children with special health care needs. Pediatrics 1998;102:137–40.10.1542/peds.102.1.137Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Brown NM, Green JC, Desai MM, Weitzman CC, Rosenthal MS. Need and unmet need for care coordination among children with mental health conditions. Pediatrics 2014;133:e530–7.10.1542/peds.2013-2590Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Kuo DZ, Cohen E, Agrawal R, Berry JG, Casey PH. A national profile of caregiver challenges among more medically complex children with special health care needs. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:1020–6.10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.172Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[20] Silva N, Crespo C, Carona C, Canavarro MC. Mapping the caregiving process in paediatric asthma: parental burden, acceptance and denial coping strategies and quality of life. Psychol Health 2015;30:949–68.10.1080/08870446.2015.1007981Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Khanna AK, Prabhakaran A, Patel P, Ganjiwale JD, Nimbalkar SM. Social, psychological and financial burden on care givers of children with chronic illness. Indian J Pediatr 2015;82: 1006–11.10.1007/s12098-015-1762-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Pincus T, Noel M, Jordan A, Serbic D. Perceived diagnostic uncertainty in pediatric chronic pain. Pain 2018;159:1198–201.10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001180Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Palermo TM. Impact of recurrent and chronic pain on child and family daily functioning: a critical review of the literature. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2000;21:58–69.10.1097/00004703-200002000-00011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Simons LE, Logan DE, Chastain L, Cerullo M. Engagement in multidisciplinary interventions for pediatric chronic pain: parental expectations, barriers, and child outcomes. Clin J Pain 2010;26:291–9.10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181cf59fbSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Odell S, Logan DE. Pediatric pain management: the multidisciplinary approach. J Pain Res 2013;6:785–90.10.2147/JPR.S37434Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[26] Evans JR, Benore E, Banez GA. The cost-effectiveness of intensive interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain rehabilitation. J Pediatr Psychol 2015;41:849–56.10.1093/jpepsy/jsv100Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2018-07-27
Revised: 2018-08-26
Accepted: 2018-08-29
Published Online: 2018-09-21
Published in Print: 2019-01-28

©2018 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. All rights reserved.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial comment
  3. The Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire – the FABQ – for the benefit of another 70 million potential pain patients
  4. The Yaksh-model of intrathecal opioid-studies: still exciting four decades later
  5. Pain is common in chronic fatigue syndrome – current knowledge and future perspectives
  6. Systematic review
  7. Use of multidomain management strategies by community dwelling adults with chronic pain: evidence from a systematic review
  8. Clinical pain research
  9. Topographic mapping of pain sensitivity of the lower back – a comparison of healthy controls and patients with chronic non-specific low back pain
  10. A prospective study of patients’ pain intensity after cardiac surgery and a qualitative review: effects of examiners’ gender on patient reporting
  11. Correlations between the active straight leg raise, sleep and somatosensory sensitivity during pregnancy with post-partum lumbopelvic pain: an initial exploration
  12. Pain is associated with reduced quality of life and functional status in patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  13. Does validation and alliance during the multimodal investigation affect patients’ acceptance of chronic pain? An experimental single case study
  14. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric properties of the Hausa version of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire in patients with low back pain
  15. Observational study
  16. Cause-specific mortality of patients with severe chronic pain referred to a multidisciplinary pain clinic: a cohort register-linkage study
  17. Pain self-efficacy moderates the association between pain and somatization in a community sample
  18. Pediatric chronic pain and caregiver burden in a national survey
  19. Psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of a modified Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R-D) for patients hospitalized with acute abdominal pain
  20. Musculoskeletal pain in multiple body sites and work ability in the general working population: cross-sectional study among 10,000 wage earners
  21. Prediction of running-induced Achilles tendinopathy with pain sensitivity – a 1-year prospective study
  22. Original experimental
  23. Body image is more negative in patients with chronic low back pain than in patients with subacute low back pain and healthy controls
  24. Identifying pain in children with CHARGE syndrome
  25. Patients’ perspective of the effectiveness and acceptability of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of fibromyalgia
  26. Exercise-induce hyperalgesia, complement system and elastase activation in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – a secondary analysis of experimental comparative studies
  27. Characterization of the antinociceptive effects of intrathecal DALDA peptides following bolus intrathecal delivery
  28. The effects of auditory background noise and virtual reality technology on video game distraction analgesia
  29. Book review
  30. Atlas of Common Pain Syndromes, 4th Edition
  31. Atlas of Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia, 3rd Edition
  32. Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine A-Z, 6th Edition
Downloaded on 16.2.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sjpain-2018-0121/html
Scroll to top button