Co-occurrence of chronic pain and clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and/or depression is regularly noted in the literature. Yet, little is known empirically about population prevalence of co-occurring symptoms, nor whether people with co-occurring symptoms constitute a distinct subpopulation within US adults living with chronic pain or US adults living with anxiety and/or depression symptoms (A/D). To address this gap, this study analyzes data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a representative annual survey of self-reported health status and treatment use in the United States (n = 31,997). Approximately 12 million US adults, or 4.9% of the adult population, have co-occurring chronic pain and A/D symptoms. Unremitted A/D symptoms co-occurred in 23.9% of US adults with chronic pain, compared with an A/D prevalence of 4.9% among those without chronic pain. Conversely, chronic pain co-occurred in the majority (55.6%) of US adults with unremitted A/D symptoms, compared with a chronic pain prevalence of 17.1% among those without A/D symptoms. The likelihood of experiencing functional limitations in daily life was highest among those experiencing co-occurring symptoms, compared with those experiencing chronic pain alone or A/D symptoms alone. Among those with co-occurring symptoms, 69.4% reported that work was limited due to a health problem, 43.7% reported difficulty doing errands alone, and 55.7% reported difficulty participating in social activities. These data point to the need for targeted investment in improving functional outcomes for the nearly 1 in 20 US adults living with co-occurring chronic pain and clinically significant A/D symptoms.

Data about Indigenous populations in the United States are inconsistent and irrelevant. Federal and state governments and researchers direct most collection, analysis, and use of data about U.S. Indigenous populations. Indigenous Peoples’ justified mistrust further complicates the collection and use of these data. Nonetheless, tribal leaders and communities depend on these data to inform decision making. Reliance on data that do not reflect tribal needs, priorities, and self-conceptions threatens tribal self-determination. Tribal data sovereignty through governance of data on Indigenous populations is long overdue. This article provides two case studies of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and their demographic and socioeconomic data initiatives to create locally and culturally relevant data for decision making.

The lack of literature on Indigenous conceptions of health and the social determinants of health (SDH) for US Indigenous communities limits available information for Indigenous nations as they set policy and allocate resources to improve the health of their citizens. In 2015, eight scholars from tribal communities and mainstream educational institutions convened to examine: the limitations of applying the World Health Organization’s (WHO) SDH framework in Indigenous communities; Indigenizing the WHO SDH framework; and Indigenous conceptions of a healthy community. Participants critiqued the assumptions within the WHO SDH framework that did not cohere with Indigenous knowledges and epistemologies and created a schematic for conceptualizing health and categorizing its determinants. As Indigenous nations pursue a policy role in health and seek to improve the health and wellness of their nations’ citizens, definitions of Indigenous health and well-being should be community-driven and Indigenous-nation based. Policies and practices for Indigenous nations and Indigenous communities should reflect and arise from sovereignty and a comprehensive understanding of the nations and communities’ conceptions of health and its determinants beyond the SDH.

Previous research suggests that individuals with mental health needs and chronic pain may be less likely to use mental health treatment compared with those with mental health needs only. Yet, few studies have investigated the existence of population-level differences in mental health treatment use. We analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey (n = 31,997) to address this question. We found that chronic pain was associated with end-to-end disparities in the mental health journeys of U.S. adults: (1) Those living with chronic pain are overrepresented among U.S. adults with mental health needs; (2) among U.S. adults with mental health needs, those living with chronic pain had a lower prevalence of mental health treatment use; (3) among U.S. adults who used mental health treatment, those living with chronic pain had a higher prevalence of screening positive for unremitted anxiety or depression; (4) among U.S. adults living with both chronic pain and mental health needs, suboptimal mental health experiences were more common than otherwise—just 44.4% of those living with mental health needs and co-occurring chronic pain reported use of mental health treatment and screened negative for unremitted anxiety and depression, compared with 71.5% among those with mental health needs only. Overall, our results suggest that U.S. adults with chronic pain constitute an underrecognized majority of those living with unremitted anxiety/depression symptoms and that the U.S. healthcare system is not yet adequately equipped to educate, screen, navigate to care, and successfully address their unmet mental health needs.

Objective: There is a lack of consensus on whether e-cigarettes facilitate or threaten existing tobacco prevention strategies. This uncertainty is reflected in organizations' conflicting e-cigarette position statements. We conducted a scoping review of position statements in published and gray literature to map the range and frequency of e-cigarette use recommendations. Methods: We collected 81 statements from international health organizations. Two coders independently performed qualitative content analysis to categorize e-cigarette recommendations. We explored differences based on organization type, geography, and the year recommendations were published. Results: We identified 5 recommendation types: encourage smokers to use ecigarettes as a cessation aid or as an alternative source of nicotine (N = 5); support individuals who use e-cigarettes to quit smoking (N = 20); avoid using until more research is available (N = 19); restrict access based on available evidence (N = 30); and prohibit e-cigarette marketing and sale (N = 7). Conclusion: Organizations presented diverse e-cigarette use recommendations. The variation related to organizations' differing tobacco prevention priorities and level of confidence in current e-cigarette research. These differences may create confusion. Additional research can examine whether this variability influences stakeholders' attitudes or behavior.