Volume 14, Issue 2 pp. 321-325

Therapeutic approaches to fibromyalgia in the Netherlands: a comparison between 1998 and 2005

Mariëlle E. A. L. Kroese MSc

Mariëlle E. A. L. Kroese MSc

Research Fellow,

Search for more papers by this author
Guy J. C. Schulpen MD PhD

Guy J. C. Schulpen MD PhD

Senior Research Fellow, Department of Integrated Care, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Henk M. Sonneveld MSc

Henk M. Sonneveld MSc

Research Fellow, Department of Quality in Healthcare, TNO, Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Hubertus J. M. Vrijhoef PhD

Corresponding Author

Hubertus J. M. Vrijhoef PhD

Department of Integrated Care, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, and Associate Professor, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, University Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands

Hubertus J. M. Vrijhoef
Faculty of Health
Medicine and Life Sciences
University Maastricht
PO Box 616
6200 MD
Maastricht
the Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
First published: 06 March 2008
Citations: 3

Abstract

Rationale In this study, information was gathered from five disciplines on their usual management methods for fibromyalgia (FM) in order to asses whether treatment regimens have changed in the Netherlands during a period of 6 years. In addition, insight was gained into the therapeutic motives of the professionals.

Method A questionnaire was sent to a sample of 150 persons per discipline: general practitioners (GPs), rheumatologists (RMTs), rehabilitation specialists (RS), physical therapists and psychologists.

Results The overall response rate was 40.4%. The referral behaviour changed (significantly), especially between GPs and RMTs. An increased choice for aerobic exercise (RS: P = 0.023) and multidisciplinary therapy (RMT: P = 0.046) was found. RMTs and RS showed decreased medication prescribing (RMT: P = 0.024). Preferences of treatment for FM differ per discipline. The choice is principally made on the basis of subjective, professional group-bound factors. Particularly for GPs, dynamic patient factors are an important motive in the management of FM.

Conclusions Despite the fact that most changes found are in conformity with the literature, the absolute application percentages of recommended therapies are still very low. The differences in practice between the several disciplines seem explicable on the basis of the factors that have a prominent role in the choice of a therapy for FM. This study underlines the need for further research into methods and processes of the management of FM, and their clinical effectiveness. An effective way of dissemination, especially of guidelines, is essential.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.