19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The social threats of COVID-19 for people with chronic pain

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          1. Introduction The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has changed the social environment in which people live and work, as well as the social systems they rely on. 39,88 To contain the spread of coronavirus and to prepare for a dramatic increase in demand for limited hospital/medical facilities and resources, societies have enforced physical distancing measures. Consequently, there have been limitations on the use of public transportation, public spaces, and work, education, and recreational facilities. Furthermore, access to vital, but nonurgent, healthcare services (including pain management services) has been restricted. These changes have affected the way people connect with each other, manage their health and wellbeing, and fulfil their social roles. For some, these changes may present opportunities (eg, increased time with family, normalisation of flexible working, and reduced demand for travel). For others, however, these social changes can also represent significant threats to health and wellbeing. The negative impact of social changes prompted by the COVID-19 crisis may disproportionately affect individuals living with long-term painful conditions. Living with chronic pain can threaten an individuals' fundamental social needs for autonomy (agency or independence), belonging (social connection), and justice (fairness). In turn, for some, experiencing heightened social threat can maintain and exacerbate chronic pain. 48 In this review, we draw attention to the potential for social and systemic changes associated with attempts to contain the spread of COVID-19 to precipitate, maintain, and exacerbate pain by increasing the social threats faced by individuals with chronic pain (Fig. 1). We also suggest strategies for mitigating the social impact of COVID-19 on those living with chronic pain, for instance by learning from the resilience demonstrated by people in pain who have found ways to deal with social threat. Finally, we suggest several time-critical, high-impact research questions for further investigation (Fig. 1). Figure 1. Schematic representation of how the COVID 19 pandemic (A) exacerbates existing levels of social threat (B), thereby inducing several social challenges (C) for people with chronic pain, and ultimately increasing the risk for the development, maintenance, and exacerbation of chronic pain complaints (D). Possible protecting processes and interventions countering the effects of the pandemic are portrayed as well (E). 2. Social threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic 1.1. Social disconnection and loneliness One of the most immediate effects of the pandemic on our social lives is the introduction of physical distancing measures and restriction of travel. It is well known that spontaneous social interactions with others and participation in social roles can build and maintain a generalised sense of trust in others (social capital), promote feelings of wellbeing, 76 provide protection from the harmful effects of stress, 95 promote social connectedness, and reduce pain sensitivity. 91 Conversely, social isolation is associated with loneliness, higher levels of depression and anxiety, poorer health behaviours, poorer sleep, higher blood pressure, poorer immune function, and pain. 40,42 Chronic pain conditions place individuals at an increased risk of social isolation, smaller social network size, and reduced social role functioning, 37,38,78 all of which have negative implications for pain interference and pain intensity over time. 7,31,47 Indeed, disruption to social roles and relationships is one of the most distressing aspects of living with chronic pain. 81 Physical distance from others and reduced participation in work and social activities can cause people to feel lonely or socially distanced from others, 73 and there are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic will lead to a steep rise in the prevalence of loneliness. 5,22,35,39 People living with chronic pain, who may have entered the pandemic with fewer social resources than others, may be particularly vulnerable to feelings of loneliness and social disconnection at this time. Unless individuals have the ability and means to maintain meaningful connections with others despite physical distancing measures, being physically isolated from others threatens to exacerbate pain and associated disability. 1.2. Risk of increased social proximity The paradox of COVID-19 is that being physically isolated from one's community can mean living in closer proximity to one's household members. People living with chronic pain conditions may benefit from more frequent contact with family members because closer proximity offers more opportunity to improve social bonds. However, enforced close-proximity living could also bring challenges to autonomy and independence. Although social support can help buffer against pain, 14,15,18,56 an increase in solicitous behaviours in such close proximity might unintentionally contribute to the chronicity of pain. 34,43,72 For example, in households where a child is in pain, increased social proximity could lead to increased exposure to protective parental behaviours and reductions in child autonomy and activity. Conversely, family members could become desensitised to the pain of others, or even become avoidant, risking further isolation for individuals living with pain. Those living with pain may experience increased feelings of guilt in response to increased support, especially if they perceive themselves to be a burden. 50,75 Alternatively, fear of rejection could lead to masking pain from others in shared living spaces, preventing individuals with pain from asking for help to meet their needs. 13,65 There is also a risk that for people living with chronic pain, living in close proximity and enclosed environments could increase exposure to interpersonal conflict, 63,69 which is known to amplify pain and disability. 11,26,36,61 For some, COVID-19 has brought about increased risks of conflict among household members, as they deal with the stresses associated with unexpected financial pressures, job insecurity, and unemployment. 21 Many people are struggling to juggle multiple social roles and responsibilities—supporting children with schoolwork, working from home, and parenting—leading to emotional exhaustion. Women, in particular, are likely to carry a greater social burden and greater responsibility for childcare during COVID-19. 1,92 Critically, domestic abuse has increased during the COVID-19 lockdown, 10 which has also been shown to contribute to chronic pain. 2,60 1.3. Reduced access to high-quality pain management COVID-19 potentially poses a significant challenge for patients seeking to access pain management. Although pain management is a fundamental right, 23 the health system responses to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 may significantly affect access for patients with complex medical conditions (eg, people with comorbid mental health conditions and addiction) and widen existing inequities in relation to pain management for socially disadvantaged populations. 90 For some people with chronic pain, the pandemic might bring life stressors that result in pain flare-ups, and increase the need for pain services. 77 Furthermore, individual pain experiences may not be considered as immediately important when compared to the need to treat life-threatening symptoms associated with COVID-19, 12 leading to less help-seeking and psychological distress. Pain management during this pandemic for clinicians involves balancing access to care with minimising safety risk from exposure to COVID-19 for vulnerable patients and clinicians themselves. 79 Cancelled elective surgeries, closure of pain management services, and redeployment of clinicians to other areas of care all result in limited access to high-quality care. Consequently, the increased burden on healthcare workers may result in a greater focus on biomedical management (eg, opioid prescribing), rather than psychological and interdisciplinary treatment approaches. Although this may be deemed necessary in the context of the pandemic due to heightened needs from patients for pain relief, clinicians and patients may not agree on opioid prescription/deprescription. 66 In addition, the individual assessment required to address the risks and benefits of opioid use and the monitoring of its use 85 may be complicated by a lack of access to face-to-face pain services. In the absence of the availability of face-to-face contact, telehealth is increasingly being recommended as a first line of care for patients, 19 including those with chronic pain. 29 The rapid transition to telehealth in response to physical distancing regulations allows people to access high-quality care without travelling, potentially increasing patient access to care. It also opens up new opportunities and enables us to think about new ways of delivering pain management. However, this mode of delivery may be particularly challenging for vulnerable groups due to poor health status and low technological literacy. 71 Even when services are delivered through telehealth, the fear of sharing confidential information from home and juggling multiple social responsibilities, particularly for women, pose further barriers to engaging in high-quality care. 64 In the context of delivery, practical challenges in conducting multidisciplinary treatment through telehealth 77 may lead to a prioritising of individual over multidisciplinary approaches. This is despite evidence that care delivered through telehealth can be as effective as face-to-face care for people experiencing pain conditions. 55 1.4. Exacerbation of social injustice and social inequalities COVID-19 is exacerbating existing social injustices and inequalities. Extreme events such as terrorist attacks and natural disasters 32,44,96 are known to undermine the fundamental belief that the world is just, stable, orderly, and predictable, 52 with ramifications for perceived life control, future prospects, and wellbeing. 67,86 This is particularly relevant to chronic pain because commitment to the belief in a just world can buffer against its adverse effects. 57 A pandemic-initiated violation of just-world beliefs could exacerbate perceived injustices associated with pain. 16 For example, physical distancing policies could further increase social isolation and potentially worsen perceived injustices, 80 while disrupting social networks that are sources of justice and support 74 may heighten perceptions of invalidation among those with pain, driven by the sense that one does not matter to others. 17 Variation in the effect of COVID-19 illustrates social inequalities around pain, and health care more generally. There are known individual differences in pain associated with social identities, including sex, ethnicity, and age. 6,33 There are also social inequalities and biases, which can affect pain burden 25 and access to pain care. 24,82 Structural and individual biases towards minority and marginalized groups that are heightened by uncertainty, stress, and fear 49 are likely to be exacerbated by COVID-19. Discrimination experienced by marginalized groups can affect peripheral and central processes, including immune functioning, 20,28,83 thus compounding the negative effects associated with the stigmatization of chronic pain. 26 Those living in poorer and/or more remote communities have higher rates of chronic pain and comorbidities 60,62 and limited access to health care, which can lead to greater unmanaged pain and disability. 3,4 Reduced access to health care, higher costs, and language might form additional barriers to pain management in these communities (eg, refugees). For example, disabling chronic pain can be more prevalent in Indigenous populations, who are also less likely to access support services. 3,4,8 Travel restrictions imposed to limit the spread of COVID-19 into remote communities are likely to disrupt the provision of nonessential services, further limiting access to pain care. Socioeconomic disadvantage also increases vulnerability to disease, including COVID-19, through many potential pathways including lower social support, 89 overcrowding, poorer sanitation, neighbourhood, and housing conditions, and poorer health behaviours (eg, smoking, diet, alcohol consumption, and reduced exercise). 9,70 Furthermore, although people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are overrepresented in “essential” employment sectors, which have been largely spared from COVID-19-related redundancies, many of these employees are now facing longer working hours under more demanding conditions. All these factors could not only lead to increased risk of exposure to COVID-19, but also, if left untreated, exacerbate other conditions, including chronic pain. In short, COVID-19 has disproportionately affected socially disadvantaged groups, and the ensuing global economic fallout could magnify these inequalities in pain further. 90 The concern is that the most economically disadvantaged will be most likely to be exposed to the hazard, most susceptible to harm from it, and most likely to experience negative outcomes from it. 88 3. Responding to social threats posed by COVID-19 The wide range of social threats that COVID-19 brings to those in pain means that no one response will address all these issues. However, by identifying such threats, we can start to think of more focused and targeted approaches. For example, just as some treatments have moved online, it may also be possible to mitigate some of the impacts of physical distancing and social isolation using technology. Social media platforms, due to their wide reach and penetration, can help disseminate key information about COVID-19, providing virtual support to enhance social connectedness. 58 People with pain already report using digital peer-support groups to connect with similar others and derive benefits from feeling validated and heard. 59 Online peer-support could potentially be used to help reduce felt social distance while maintaining physical distance. Increasing digital social connectedness might afford people with chronic pain more social contact and accessibility than is possible face-to-face because it does not require physical mobility. However, we also need to ensure that the use of social platforms is beneficial, and do not increase risk (eg, due to the exposure to poor-quality health information that reinforces disability or propagating unproven and potentially harmful approaches). 27 Even so, the pandemic has provided an opportunity to understand how social media might be better used as a tool to develop a sense of community and reduce isolation. Online technology can be used to facilitate the delivery of healthcare interventions, under the guidance of healthcare professionals. For example, cognitive behavioural therapies for loneliness delivered online can decrease loneliness and improve mental wellbeing. 45,46 Online pain management programs seem to hold promise, 29 particularly when patients have contact with healthcare providers, albeit remotely. 54 Online resources can disseminate pain education, and online training programs on pain self-management can be developed for healthcare professionals, those with pain, and their close others. 30,41,84 However, these novel digital interventions might not be accessible for all and may even put up new barriers to those who require them the most (eg, socially disconnected individuals with limited digital literacy). We also need to think beyond technology. The COVID-19 pandemic served to highlight the upstream social determinants of health, many of affect chronic pain directly. Historic social inequalities and unequal access to resources shape individual-level risk factors, which in turn produce and perpetuate health disparities. 53 These structural problems require structural solutions 51,93 with the aim to improve population health, for instance by bolstering social welfare systems, public health funding, and improved global cooperation. 68,87,94 At the local level, online technologies could mitigate the social threat of existing social inequalities and injustices, providing access to relatively inexpensive, location-independent treatment, and social connection. Coupled with systemic interventions such as increased government funding to telehealth services, reducing the costs and barriers to internet access, and making computers and mobile devices available to those who otherwise might not have access to them can further reduce these disparities. 97 4. Conclusions and future directions The current pandemic has exacerbated existing sources of social threat for people with chronic pain. To prevent a population-level increase in the severity and impact of chronic pain, it is critical to devote scientific attention to the assessment, mitigation, and prevention of sources of social threat for people with chronic pain. Table 1 outlines several high-impact areas for research to this end. Crucially, COVID-19 should not only be regarded as a challenge but also as a unique opportunity for researchers and clinicians to develop new ways to deliver social support and pain management, as well as understand the impact of social adjustment among individuals with chronic pain. Table 1 Priorities for research on social factors resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Conflict of interest statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

          Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response

            The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak

              Policies and public health efforts have not addressed the gendered impacts of disease outbreaks. 1 The response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears no different. We are not aware of any gender analysis of the outbreak by global health institutions or governments in affected countries or in preparedness phases. Recognising the extent to which disease outbreaks affect women and men differently is a fundamental step to understanding the primary and secondary effects of a health emergency on different individuals and communities, and for creating effective, equitable policies and interventions. Although sex-disaggregated data for COVID-19 show equal numbers of cases between men and women so far, there seem to be sex differences in mortality and vulnerability to the disease. 2 Emerging evidence suggests that more men than women are dying, potentially due to sex-based immunological 3 or gendered differences, such as patterns and prevalence of smoking. 4 However, current sex-disaggregated data are incomplete, cautioning against early assumptions. Simultaneously, data from the State Council Information Office in China suggest that more than 90% of health-care workers in Hubei province are women, emphasising the gendered nature of the health workforce and the risk that predominantly female health workers incur. 5 The closure of schools to control COVID-19 transmission in China, Hong Kong, Italy, South Korea, and beyond might have a differential effect on women, who provide most of the informal care within families, with the consequence of limiting their work and economic opportunities. Travel restrictions cause financial challenges and uncertainty for mostly female foreign domestic workers, many of whom travel in southeast Asia between the Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. 6 Consideration is further needed of the gendered implications of quarantine, such as whether women and men's different physical, cultural, security, and sanitary needs are recognised. Experience from past outbreaks shows the importance of incorporating a gender analysis into preparedness and response efforts to improve the effectiveness of health interventions and promote gender and health equity goals. During the 2014–16 west African outbreak of Ebola virus disease, gendered norms meant that women were more likely to be infected by the virus, given their predominant roles as caregivers within families and as front-line health-care workers. 7 Women were less likely than men to have power in decision making around the outbreak, and their needs were largely unmet. 8 For example, resources for reproductive and sexual health were diverted to the emergency response, contributing to a rise in maternal mortality in a region with one of the highest rates in the world. 9 During the Zika virus outbreak, differences in power between men and women meant that women did not have autonomy over their sexual and reproductive lives, 10 which was compounded by their inadequate access to health care and insufficient financial resources to travel to hospitals for check-ups for their children, despite women doing most of the community vector control activities. 11 Given their front-line interaction with communities, it is concerning that women have not been fully incorporated into global health security surveillance, detection, and prevention mechanisms. Women's socially prescribed care roles typically place them in a prime position to identify trends at the local level that might signal the start of an outbreak and thus improve global health security. Although women should not be further burdened, particularly considering much of their labour during health crises goes underpaid or unpaid, incorporating women's voices and knowledge could be empowering and improve outbreak preparedness and response. Despite the WHO Executive Board recognising the need to include women in decision making for outbreak preparedness and response, 12 there is inadequate women's representation in national and global COVID-19 policy spaces, such as in the White House Coronavirus Task Force. 13 © 2020 Miguel Medina/Contributor/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. If the response to disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 is to be effective and not reproduce or perpetuate gender and health inequities, it is important that gender norms, roles, and relations that influence women's and men's differential vulnerability to infection, exposure to pathogens, and treatment received, as well as how these may differ among different groups of women and men, are considered and addressed. We call on governments and global health institutions to consider the sex and gender effects of the COVID-19 outbreak, both direct and indirect, and conduct an analysis of the gendered impacts of the multiple outbreaks, incorporating the voices of women on the front line of the response to COVID-19 and of those most affected by the disease within preparedness and response policies or practices going forward.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pain
                Pain
                JPAIN
                Pain
                JOP
                Pain
                Wolters Kluwer (Philadelphia, PA )
                0304-3959
                1872-6623
                13 July 2020
                : 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002004
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre for the Psychology of Learning and Experimental Psychopathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [b ]Research Group on Experimental Health Psychology, Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [c ]Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland
                [d ]Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
                [e ]Centre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research (CHARR), School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
                [f ]Department of Psychology, Indiana University—Purdue University Indianapolis, IN, United States
                [g ]Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
                [h ]Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
                [i ]Department of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [j ]School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
                [k ]Pain Management Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Faculty of Education and Psychology, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, Box 3726, Leuven 3000, Belgium. E-mail address: Kai.Karos@ 123456kuleuven.be (K. Karos).
                Article
                PAIN-D-20-00707
                10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002004
                7382418
                32694381
                dec43480-e96b-4796-a4bf-74cd20441a8c
                Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                Categories
                Topical Review
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article