ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2019
Solicitous and invalidating responses are associated with health-care visits in fibromyalgia.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- What do we know about medical invalidation and related concepts? - A scoping review and thematic analysis about the definitions, measurements, causes, consequences and potential solutions for medical invalidation.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Discounting seems the most toxic dimension of invalidation in fibromyalgia: a cross-sectional analysis.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- A bio-what? Medical companions' perceptions towards biosimilars and information needs in rheumatology.Rheumatology international · 2022Article
- Two sides on the fibromyalgia coin: physical pain and social pain (invalidation).Clinical rheumatology · 2021Review
- Anxiety, Reinforcement Sensitivity and Social Context in Accepting the Experience of Pain Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHealth-care use in FM is substantial. Besides the severity of the disease and psychological factors, previous research suggests that the social environment can influence patients' health-care use. In this study, we describe health-care use in patients with FM and investigate the relationship of social responses of the partner and family with health-care use.
methodsCross-sectional data of 280 patients with FM were analysed. Sociodemographic variables, health-status variables, health-care use, partner's solicitous and punishing responses, and invalidation (i.e. discounting and lack of understanding) by family were assessed. Heath-care use was defined as the number of visits to physicians and health professionals. Associations of independent variables with health-care use were examined using univariate and hierarchical regression analyses.
resultsIn the preceding 6 months, 99% of the patients visited at least one physician and 66% visited at least one health professional. The mean (s.d.) total health-care visits and the number of different disciplines consulted were 18.5 (17.7) and 3.6 (1.7), respectively. Being female, paid employment, having a co-morbid condition, a higher severity of FM, more partner's solicitous responses and more invalidating responses by family were univariately associated with visits to a physician. Having a co-morbid condition, severity of FM and invalidation by family were uniquely associated with visits to a physician. No other associations were found.
conclusionTherapeutic attention to patients' close social environment might be a useful approach to improve health-related outcomes, including health-care use, in patients with FM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.