www.mobilehealthmap.org 617‐442‐3200 New research shows that mobile health clinics improve health outcomes for hard to reach populations in cost‐effective and culturally competent ways . A Harvard Medical School study determined that for every dollar invested in a mobile health clinic, the US healthcare system saves $30 on average. Mobile health clinics, which offer a range of services from preventive screenings to asthma treatment, leverage their mobility to treat people in the convenience of their own communities. For example, a mobile health clinic in Baltimore, MD, has documented savings of $3,500 per child seen due to reduced asthma‐related hospitalizations. The estimated 2,000 mobile health clinics across the country are providing similarly cost‐effective access to healthcare for a wide range of populations. Many successful mobile health clinics cite their ability to foster trusting relationships. Qualitative research in such mobile health clinics has found that patients value the informal, familiar environment in a convenient location, with staff who “are easy to talk to,” and that the staff’s “marriage of professional and personal discourses” provides patients the space to disclose information themselves. A communications academic argued that mobile health clinics’ unique use of space is important in facilitating these relationships. Mobile health clinics park in the heart of the community in familiar spaces, like shopping centers or bus stations, which lend themselves to the local community atmosphere.

Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care

The National Academy of Sciences through its Institute of Medicine (IOM) has produced a major scholarly assessment of pain in America. This document is a tremendous contribution to the evolving nec...

Relieving pain in america: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research

Black Americans are systematically undertreated for pain relative to white Americans. We examine whether this racial bias is related to false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites (e.g., “black people’s skin is thicker than white people’s skin”). Study 1 documented these beliefs among white laypersons and revealed that participants who more strongly endorsed false beliefs about biological differences reported lower pain ratings for a black (vs. white) target. Study 2 extended these findings to the medical context and found that half of a sample of white medical students and residents endorsed these beliefs. Moreover, participants who endorsed these beliefs rated the black (vs. white) patient’s pain as lower and made less accurate treatment recommendations. Participants who did not endorse these beliefs rated the black (vs. white) patient’s pain as higher, but showed no bias in treatment recommendations. These findings suggest that individuals with at least some medical training hold and may use false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites to inform medical judgments, which may contribute to racial disparities in pain assessment and treatment.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/16/4296.full.pdf

Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites

This article surveys worldwide medical, ethical, and legal trends and initiatives related to the concept of pain management as a human right. This concept recently gained momentum with the 2004 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Chapters-, International Association for the Study of Pain- and World Health Organization-sponsored "Global Day Against Pain," where it was adopted as a central theme. We survey the scope of the problem of unrelieved pain in three areas, acute pain, chronic noncancer pain, and cancer pain, and outline the adverse physical and psychological effects and social and economic costs of untreated pain. Reasons for deficiencies in pain management include cultural, societal, religious, and political attitudes, including acceptance of torture. The biomedical model of disease, focused on pathophysiology rather than quality of life, reinforces entrenched attitudes that marginalize pain management as a priority. Strategies currently applied for improvement include framing pain management as an ethical issue; promoting pain management as a legal right, providing constitutional guarantees and statutory regulations that span negligence law, criminal law, and elder abuse; defining pain management as a fundamental human right, categorizing failure to provide pain management as professional misconduct, and issuing guidelines and standards of practice by professional bodies. The role of the World Health Organization is discussed, particularly with respect to opioid availability for pain management. We conclude that, because pain management is the subject of many initiatives within the disciplines of medicine, ethics and law, we are at an "inflection point" in which unreasonable failure to treat pain is viewed worldwide as poor medicine, unethical practice, and an abrogation of a fundamental human right.

/pdf/pain-management-a-fundamental-human-right-1999n334ri.pdf

Pain management : A fundamental human right

Racial and ethnic disparities in pain: causes and consequences of unequal care.

CONTEXT: Pain has significant socioeconomic, health, and quality-of-life implications. Racial- and ethnic-based differences in the pain care experience have been described. Racial and ethnic minorities tend to be undertreated for pain when compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

OBJECTIVES: To provide health care providers, researchers, health care policy analysts, government officials, patients, and the general public with pertinent evidence regarding differences in pain perception, assessment, and treatment for racial and ethnic minorities. Evidence is provided for racial- and ethnic-based differences in pain care across different types of pain (i.e., experimental pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, chronic non-malignant pain) and settings (i.e., emergency department). Pertinent literature on patient, health care provider, and health care system factors that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in pain treatment are provided.

EVIDENCE: A selective literature review was performed by experts in pain. The experts developed abstracts with relevant citations on racial and ethnic disparities within their specific areas of expertise. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The abstracts were compiled for this manuscript. The draft manuscript was made available to the experts for comment and review prior to submission for publication.

CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the Institute of Medicine's report on health care disparities, racial and ethnic disparities in pain perception, assessment, and treatment were found in all settings (i.e., postoperative, emergency room) and across all types of pain (i.e., acute, cancer, chronic nonmalignant, and experimental). The literature suggests that the sources of pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities are complex, involving patient (e.g., patient/health care provider communication, attitudes), health care provider (e.g., decision making), and health care system (e.g., access to pain medication) factors. There is a need for improved training for health care providers and educational interventions for patients. A comprehensive pain research agenda is necessary to address pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities.

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/73822/j.1526-4637.2003.03034.x.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Donna A. Kaloukalani

Papers

The Unequal Burden of Pain: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pain