(915) Ethnic differences in recruitment for pain researchD Herrera, K Virtusio, C Campbell, B Hastie, R Fillingim; University of FloridaCollege of Dentistry, Gainesville, FLThe effective recruitment of study participants is a fundamental compo-nent of pain research, and obtaining a non-biased sample is imperativeto ensure generalizability of research data. In order to elucidate factorsthat influence participation in pain research and to examine the possi-bility that different recruitment methods relate to pain outcome mea-sures, the present study utilized semi-structured telephone screeningprocedures. Demographic and medical data were collected to ensurepotential participants’ eligibility for participation in an experimentalpain study. Our recruitment methods targeted healthy individuals fromthree different ethnic groups: African Americans, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic Whites. Participants that responded to posted advertisements(participant-initiated) were compared with those that were recruitedthrough a phone list of interested research participants (investigator-initiated). Respondents were characterized as eligible or ineligible andreasons for non-enrollment were compared across groups. A total of 525individuals (328 women, 197 men) from the three ethnic groups werescreened. No ethnic group differences in eligibility for the studyemerged; however, a significantly smaller proportion of screened Afri-can American respondents (35.5%) enrolled in the study compared towhites (48.9%), while Hispanics fell in between (42.3%). In addition, agreater number of telephone calls were required to complete thescreening process with subjects from minority groups than non-HispanicWhites (p � .05). Of those who enrolled, a greater proportion of AfricanAmericans (24.2%) than whites (8.2%) or Hispanics (4.6%) were re-cruited via investigator-initiated versus participant-initiated methods.Interestingly, the relatively small number of participants enrolled viainvestigator-initiated methods were less pain sensitive than those par-ticipants recruited through participant-initiated means. These findingssuggest that different methods may be used to recruit subjects fromdifferent ethnic groups, and this may influence responses to experimen-tal pain measures. The reasons for these findings, as well as their prac-tical implications, will be discussed.

(916) Pain attitudes and responses to pain in Caucasian andChinese

A Hsieh, D Tripp; Queen’s University, Kingston, ONResearch shows that there are cross-cultural differences in pain manage-ment practices in North America (e.g. Green et al., 2003). There aresuggestions that culture may be a defining construct in such treatmentdiscrepancies. Craig (2001) suggests that the tendency to be highly re-active or impassive to pain is attributed to an individual’s cultural back-ground. Through observational learning, direct instruction, and socialreinforcement, children and adults display patterns of pain that con-forms to familial and cultural expectations (Craig, 1987). To date, littleresearch has investigated impact of pain attitudes on verbal and non-verbal pain behaviours across different cultures. This study will examinedifferences in pain attitudes and pain behaviours between Caucasiansand Chinese. We hypothesize that cultural groups will moderate therelation between pain attitudes and pain behaviours. Examining howdifferent cultural groups report and display pain may have clinical im-plications by providing insight into patterns of pain behaviours. FiftyCaucasian and fifty Chinese undergraduate students underwent theCold Pressor (CP) task. The participant’s facial expressions were video-taped. Pain Attitudes Questionnaire-Revised (Yong et al., 2003) wasadministered prior to the CP task. Participants provided pain intensityrating (Numerical Rating Sclae) during the CP task and pain unpleasant-ness after the task (SF-McGill; Melzack, 1987). Facial expressions werecoded utilizing Facial Action Coding System (Ekman & Friesen, 1978).ANOVA will be conducted to examine pain responses and pain attitudesbetween the two groups. Multiple regression analysis will be conductedto test the moderating effect of cultural group on pain responses.

(917) Racial differences in pain managementM Ezenwa, S Hughes, S Ward, R Serlin; University of Wisconsin-Madison, Mad-ison, WIRace has been identified as a factor that may influence whether or notan individual receives adequate pain management. This secondary dataanalysis (1) examined differences in pain severity between African-Americans and Caucasian cancer patients; (2) evaluated the barriers toadequate pain management reported by these groups; and (3) deter-mined factors that may explain the observed differences between thegroups. Baseline data from 2 randomized controlled trials that tested apsycho-educational intervention for pain management in patients withcancer were analyzed. Subjects (N�296) completed 5 measures of painseverity (worst pain, least pain, pain now, severity of usual pain andfrequency of moderate to severe pain). A composite pain severity scorewas created from Z scores of these items. Subjects also completed theBarriers questionnaire-II (BQ-II). Most subjects were female (59.5%) and90.5% were Caucasian. Subjects’ mean (SD) age was 56.61 (12.52) years.The most frequently reported barrier by African-Americans and Cauca-sians was fear of addiction. A 2 (race) by 2 (gender) ANCOVA with ageand education as covariates was used to analyze the data. Significantdifferences by race were found for the composite pain severity measureand for BQ-II scores; African Americans had higher pain severity andmore barriers than did Caucasians. No other variable had a significanteffect on either pain severity or BQ-II scores. This study supported otherfindings about the influence of race on pain management.

(918) Nurses’ response to patients’ pain communicationD McDonald; University of Connecticut, Storrs, CTThe purpose of this experiment was to test nurses’ response to patients’pain descriptions (numeric, personal, or numeric and personal). Onehundred twenty-two nurses read a vignette about a postoperativetrauma patient in moderately severe pain, and wrote how they wouldrespond. The vignettes were identical except for the patient’s pain de-scription (numeric, personal, or numeric and personal) and patient age(adolescent, adult). Two blind raters content analyzed the responses,giving nurses one point for each of six recommended responses derivedfrom the Acute Pain Management: Operative or Medical Procedures andTrauma Guidelines (1992) and the American Pain Society’s (2003) Princi-ples of Analgesic Use in the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain.Nurses planned similar numbers of responses across the pain descriptionconditions, with a mean of 2.1 (SD � 1.14) out of six recommended painmanagement responses. The percentage of nurses planning to use eachof the responses included 45.9% further assessing the pain, 29.5% ad-ministering the analgesic bolus, 4.1% administering the bolus as or-dered until an acceptable level of pain was reached or at least 50% ofthe pain was relieved, 43.4% providing an adjuvant to the opioid anal-gesic, 27.9% reassessing the response to the pain treatments, and 55.7%collaborating with a physician for an increased analgesic dose or de-creased interval or both. Nurses did not respond with more pain man-agement strategies when the patient described pain in his own words,or in his own words and with a pain intensity scale. Nurses planned fewstrategies to respond to the moderately severe pain problems. Patients’personal pain descriptions and the 0 to 10 pain intensity scale merelyprovide a starting point for communication between patients and prac-titioners as they work together to reduce or eliminate pain.

S79Abstracts