Variations in the management of fibromyalgia by physician specialty: rheumatology versus primary care

IF 2.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pragmatic and Observational Research Pub Date : 2016-05-20 DOI:10.2147/POR.S79441
S. Able, Rebecca L. Robinson, K. Kroenke, Philip J Mease, David A. Williams, Yi Chen, M. Wohlreich, Bill H. McCarberg
{"title":"Variations in the management of fibromyalgia by physician specialty: rheumatology versus primary care","authors":"S. Able, Rebecca L. Robinson, K. Kroenke, Philip J Mease, David A. Williams, Yi Chen, M. Wohlreich, Bill H. McCarberg","doi":"10.2147/POR.S79441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose To evaluate the effect of physician specialty regarding diagnosis and treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) and assess the clinical status of patients initiating new treatment for FM using data from Real-World Examination of Fibromyalgia: Longitudinal Evaluation of Costs and Treatments. Patients and methods Outpatients from 58 sites in the United States were enrolled. Data were collected via in-office surveys and telephone interviews. Pairwise comparisons by specialty were made using chi-square, Fisher’s exact tests, and Student’s t-tests. Results Physician specialist cohorts included rheumatologists (n=54), primary care physicians (n=25), and a heterogeneous group of physicians practicing pain or physical medicine, psychiatry, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, osteopathy, or an unspecified specialty (n=12). The rheumatologists expressed higher confidence diagnosing FM (4.5 on a five-point scale) than primary care physicians (4.1) (P=0.037). All cohorts strongly agreed that recognizing FM is their responsibility. They agreed that psychological aspects of FM are important, but disagreed that symptoms are psychosomatic. All physician cohorts agreed with a multidisciplinary approach including nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments, although physicians were more confident prescribing medications than alternative therapies. Most patients reported moderate to severe pain, multiple comorbidities, and treatment with several medications and nonpharmacologic therapies. Conclusion Physician practice characteristics, physician attitudes, and FM patient profiles were broadly similar across specialties. The small but significant differences reported by physicians and patients across physician cohorts suggest that despite published guidelines, treatment of FM still contains important variance across specialties.","PeriodicalId":20399,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","volume":"7 1","pages":"11 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/POR.S79441","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S79441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the effect of physician specialty regarding diagnosis and treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) and assess the clinical status of patients initiating new treatment for FM using data from Real-World Examination of Fibromyalgia: Longitudinal Evaluation of Costs and Treatments. Patients and methods Outpatients from 58 sites in the United States were enrolled. Data were collected via in-office surveys and telephone interviews. Pairwise comparisons by specialty were made using chi-square, Fisher’s exact tests, and Student’s t-tests. Results Physician specialist cohorts included rheumatologists (n=54), primary care physicians (n=25), and a heterogeneous group of physicians practicing pain or physical medicine, psychiatry, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, osteopathy, or an unspecified specialty (n=12). The rheumatologists expressed higher confidence diagnosing FM (4.5 on a five-point scale) than primary care physicians (4.1) (P=0.037). All cohorts strongly agreed that recognizing FM is their responsibility. They agreed that psychological aspects of FM are important, but disagreed that symptoms are psychosomatic. All physician cohorts agreed with a multidisciplinary approach including nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments, although physicians were more confident prescribing medications than alternative therapies. Most patients reported moderate to severe pain, multiple comorbidities, and treatment with several medications and nonpharmacologic therapies. Conclusion Physician practice characteristics, physician attitudes, and FM patient profiles were broadly similar across specialties. The small but significant differences reported by physicians and patients across physician cohorts suggest that despite published guidelines, treatment of FM still contains important variance across specialties.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同专科医师对纤维肌痛的治疗差异:风湿病学与初级保健
目的评价医生专业对纤维肌痛(FM)诊断和治疗的影响,并利用纤维肌痛的真实世界检查数据评估患者的临床状况:成本和治疗的纵向评估。患者和方法纳入了美国58个地区的门诊患者。数据通过办公室调查和电话采访收集。使用卡方检验、Fisher精确检验和学生t检验对专业进行两两比较。结果专科医师队列包括风湿病医师(n=54)、初级保健医师(n=25),以及由从事疼痛或物理医学、精神病学、神经病学、妇产科、骨科或未指明专科的医师组成的异质组(n=12)。风湿病学家对FM诊断的置信度(5分制为4.5)高于初级保健医生(4.1)(P=0.037)。所有人都强烈同意,承认FM是他们的责任。他们同意FM的心理方面很重要,但不同意症状是心身性的。所有的医生队列都同意采用包括非药物和药物治疗在内的多学科方法,尽管医生对开药比替代疗法更有信心。大多数患者报告中度至重度疼痛,多种合并症,并接受多种药物和非药物治疗。结论医师执业特征、医师态度和FM患者概况在各专科大体相似。医生和患者在医师队列中报告的微小但显著的差异表明,尽管发表了指南,但FM的治疗在不同专业之间仍然存在重要差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pragmatic and Observational Research
Pragmatic and Observational Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Pragmatic and Observational Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes data from studies designed to closely reflect medical interventions in real-world clinical practice, providing insights beyond classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While RCTs maximize internal validity for cause-and-effect relationships, they often represent only specific patient groups. This journal aims to complement such studies by providing data that better mirrors real-world patients and the usage of medicines, thus informing guidelines and enhancing the applicability of research findings across diverse patient populations encountered in everyday clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Improving the Transparency and Replicability of Consensus Methods: Respiratory Medicine as a Case Example. Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis Patient Characterization and Real-World Management Approaches in Italy. Comparing Machine Learning and Advanced Methods with Traditional Methods to Generate Weights in Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting: The INFORM Study. Involvement of Root Canal Treatment in Pro-Inflammatory Processes - A Real-World Study. UK Electronic Healthcare Records for Research: A Scientometric Analysis of Respiratory, Cardiovascular, and COVID-19 Publications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1