Sex, Gender, and Pain: A Review of Recent Clinical and Experimental Findings

Summary Recent years have witnessed substantially increased research regarding sex differences in pain. The expansive body of literature in this area clearly suggests that men and women differ in their responses to pain, with increased pain sensitivity and risk for clinical pain commonly being observed among women. Also, differences in responsivity to pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain interventions have been observed; however, these effects are not always consistent and appear dependent on treatment type and characteristics of both the pain and the provider. Although the specific aetiological basis underlying these sex differences is unknown, it seems inevitable that multiple biological and psychosocial processes are contributing factors. For instance, emerging evidence suggests that genotype and endogenous opioid functioning play a causal role in these disparities, and considerable literature implicates sex hormones as factors influencing pain sensitivity. However, the specific modulatory effect of sex hormones on pain among men and women requires further exploration. Psychosocial processes such as pain coping and early-life exposure to stress may also explain sex differences in pain, in addition to stereotypical gender roles that may contribute to differences in pain expression. Therefore, this review will provide a brief overview of the extant literature examining sex-related differences in clinical and experimental pain, and highlights several biopsychosocial mechanisms implicated in these male–female differences. The future directions of this field of research are discussed with an emphasis aimed towards further elucidation of mechanisms which may inform future efforts to develop sex-specific treatments.

Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings

This book attempts to achieve a difficult goal: to teach statistics to the novice so as to impart a liking and understanding of statistics. The book is geared toward a medical audience, since most examples are from the medical literature. The structure of the book consists of the following elements in each chapter: a small number of statistical rules of thumb, followed by a nontechnical explanation, a demonstration of how to work through the mechanics of doing the statistical test in question, a summary, and sample problems to be solved by the reader. (The answers, with explanations, are provided in an appendix.) Although a variety of univariate statistics are included, certain topics that are important in medical research are not. For example, there is little or no discussion of multiple regression, life-table techniques, or pooling of studies. These omissions, especially of multiple regression, are unfortunate. The Primer was derived from

Primer of Biostatistics

As mental health recovery gains traction, many people have put forward varying definitions. Few attempts have been made to create a dimensional analysis of the recovery literature that assesses the growing consensus about what recovery is or what its definition should entail. This paper incorporates an ecological framework to take the individual's life context into account while emphasizing both the reestablishment of one's mental health (i.e., first order change) and the mitigation of the oppressive nature of barriers imposed by the greater community (i.e., second order change) so that people may experience social integration and community inclusion.

An analysis of the definitions and elements of recovery: A review of the literature.

Mental health professionals commonly conceptualize medication management for people with severe mental illness in terms of strategies to increase compliance or adherence. The authors argue that compliance is an inadequate construct because it fails to capture the dynamic complexity of autonomous clients who must navigate decisional conflicts in learning to manage disorders over the course of years or decades. Compliance is rooted in medical paternalism and is at odds with principles of personcentered care and evidencebased medicine. Using medication is an active process that involves complex decision making and a chance to work through decisional conflicts. It requires a partnership between two experts: the client and the practitioner. Shared decision making provides a model for them to assess a treatment’s advantages and disadvantages within the context of recovering a life after a diagnosis of a major mental disorder. (Psychiatric Services 57: 1636–1639, 2006) A lthough the exact definitions of compliance and noncompliance remain a topic of debate, Weiden and Rao (1) suggested that the most common definition of the word is “a deviation or cessation of a medication regimen that is less than what was recommended by the doctor.” Compliance interventions are often designed to increase clients’ behavioral conformity to a practitioner’s view of optimal treatment. Shared decision making diverges radically from compliance because it assumes that two experts—the client and the practitioner—must share their respective information and determine collaboratively the optimal treatment. Contemporary evidence-based approaches to the management of long-term medical illnesses are based on the process of shared decision making. Similarly high standards should be adopted in psychiatry. In this Open Forum, we present a rationale for adoption of the shared decision-making approach in psychiatry from both the client and practitioner points of

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1176/ps.2006.57.11.1636

Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process.

Objectives: This study examined rates of interest in creating psychiatric advance directives among individuals at risk of psychiatric crises in which these directives might be used and variables associated with interest in the directives. Methods: The participants were 303 adults with serious and persistent mental illnesses who were receiving community mental health services and who had experienced at least two psychiatric crises in the previous two years. Case managers introduced the concepts of the directives and assessed participants’ interest. The associations between interest in the directives and demographic characteristics, psychiatric symptoms, level of functioning, diagnosis, history of hospitalizations, history of outpatient commitment orders, support for the directives by case managers, and site differences were examined. Results: Interest in creating a directive was expressed by 161 participants (53 percent). Variables significantly associated with interest were support for the directives by a participant’s case manager and having no outpatient commitment orders in the previous two years. Reasons for interest included using the directives in anticipation of additional crises and as a vehicle to help ensure provision of preferred treatment. Conclusions: Substantial interest in psychiatric advance directives was shown among individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. The results strongly suggested that attitudes of clinicians about psychiatric advance directives are associated with interest in the directives among these individuals. Therefore, it is important to educate clinicians and address their concerns about the directives so that they can more comfortably support creating the documents. A shift in values may also be necessary to more consistently recognize and honor patients’ treatment preferences as specified in the directives. (Psychiatric Services 54:981–986, 2003)

/pdf/interest-in-psychiatric-advance-directives-among-high-users-4i2sjpdxm2.pdf

Interest in Psychiatric Advance Directives Among High Users of Crisis Services and Hospitalization

Aims: Since cyclic effects on experimental pain response in women with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) have not been adequately studied, the aim of this study was to assess variations in experimental pain response at 4 phases of the menstrual cycle
Methods: Eighteen normally cycling women with TMD, 25 women with TMD and taking oral contraceptives (OC), 25 normally cycling pain-free controls, and 26 pain-free controls taking OC underwent 3 experimental pain procedures at 4 phases during each of 3 menstrual cycles These procedures included algometer palpations at fixed amounts of pressure and pressure pain thresholds at several body sites, and an ischemic arm pain task Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare cycle phase, TMD group, and OC status differences in experimental pain response
Results: Significant phase-related differences were seen for palpation intensity measures (P values , 05) Normally cycling women with TMD showed higher palpation pain intensity at menses and midluteal phases, while women with TMD taking OC showed stable palpation pain intensity ratings at menses, ovulatory, and midluteal phases, with increased intensity at the late luteal phase TMD subjects had greater palpation pain and ischemic pain intensity and lower pressure pain thresholds compared to controls
Conclusion: Phase-related differences in experimental pain response were not strong and were more often found for experimental stimuli with greater clinical relevance (ie, palpation pain) compared with an ischemic pain task

Cyclic effects on experimental pain response in women with temporomandibular disorders.

OBJECTIVE Patients with temporomandibular pain disorders (TMD) have greater experimental pain perception when compared with pain-free controls. Common psychological features of TMD include somatization and depression. The impact of depression on experimental pain perception has received considerable attention. However, the role of somatization on experimental pain in a chronic pain population has not been explored. METHODS Fifty-six women with TMD and 59 pain-free controls underwent three experimental pain procedures, including palpation at fixed amounts of pressure, pressure pain thresholds, and an ischemic pain task. Levels of depression and somatization were assessed using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD. Multiple regression analyses were performed to determine the extent to which depression and somatization were associated with experimental pain response. RESULTS After controlling for characteristic pain intensity and depression, somatization explained a significant proportion of variance in numbers of masticatory sites rated as painful (R2 change = 6.7%, p = .046) with the full model explaining 16.4% of the variance (p = .024). This did not meet an adjusted level of statistical significance (p = .008). After controlling for characteristic pain, only depression added significantly to the model predicting ischemic pain threshold and tolerance. The full models including characteristic pain and depression explained 49% and 20% of the variance in ischemic pain threshold and tolerance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that depression and somatization are associated with different measures of experimental pain. Somatization may be related to more attentional and perceptual measures of clinically relevant pain while depression may be related to more behavioral measures of pain.

Julie C. Sage

Papers

Interest in Psychiatric Advance Directives Among High Users of Crisis Services and Hospitalization

Cyclic effects on experimental pain response in women with temporomandibular disorders.

The relationship of somatization and depression to experimental pain response in women with temporomandibular disorders.