Can large surveys conducted on highly selected populations provide valid information on the epidemiology of common health conditions? An analysis of UK Biobank data on musculoskeletal pain

Abstract

Introduction:

Biobank-type studies are typically large but have very low participation rates. It has been suggested that these studies may provide biased estimates of prevalence but are likely to provide valid estimates of association. We test these hypotheses using data collected on pain in a large Biobank study in the United Kingdom.

Methods:

UK Biobank recruited 503,325 persons aged 40–69 years (participation rate 5.5%). Participants completed questionnaires, including pain, lifestyle and environment factors. As a comparison, we used both a large population study of pain (MUSICIAN: n = 8847, aged: 40–69 years) conducted 2008–2009 and the National Child Development study (NCDS) which recruited all persons in Great Britain born during one week of 1958 and followed them up at age 44 years (n = 9377).

Results:

‘Any pain’ (UK Biobank 61.0%; MUSICIAN 63.9%), chronic pain (42.9%, 52.2%) and site-specific musculoskeletal pain (back 26.2%, 29.7%; shoulder/neck 23.3%, 25.3%) were generally similar in UK Biobank and MUSICIAN. The prevalence of chronic pain and most regional musculoskeletal pains in UK Biobank were all within 2% of that in NCDS.

Conclusion:

UK Biobank has provided estimates of the prevalence of pain which are similar to those from previous large-scale studies, although a formal comparison of the estimates cannot be made. It has also confirmed known associations with the reporting of pain. Despite its very low participation rate, such a study provides the opportunity to investigate novel exposure–pain relationships and investigate rarer exposures and characteristics to further our knowledge of the epidemiology of pain.