Communication preferences in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome: descriptive results and patient characteristics as predictors

Figures & data

Figure 1 Participant flow diagram.

Abbreviation: FMS, fibromyalgia syndrome.

Table 1 Respondent characteristics (n=256)

Sociodemographic characteristics
Age, years (M, SD)	52.6 (8.4)
Sex (%)
Female	91.3
Level of education (highest level completed) (%)
Elementary school	30.9
Secondary school	38.6
Employed (%)	80.3
Regular partner (%)	75.9
Medical characteristics
Duration of symptoms (%)
<1 year	2.4
1–2 years	4.8
3–5 years	13.5
6–10 years	20.7
>10 years	53.4
KoMo-Score^Citation25,a (0–10, M, SD)	1.20 (0.69)
Expanded KoMo-Scorea	0.30 (0.68)
(Additional questions regarding FMS; 0–10, M, SD)
Pain impact variables
FIQ-G^Citation26,b (0–80, M, SD)	52.45 (12.91)
Psychologic variables
IPQ-COH^Citation27,c (1–25, M, SD)	15.88 (4.96)
HADS^Citation28,d (0–21, M, SD)
Depression	9.44 (4.52)
Anxiety	10.82 (4.01)
ASES^Citation29,e (1–10, M, SD)	5.05 (1.72)
FESV^Citation31^–^Citation33,f HD and AR: 5–30; AOC, CR, SE, MD, CA, RE, AN: 4–24, (M, SD)
Pain-related psychologic strain – helplessness and depression (HD)	20.78 (5.98)
Cognitive coping strategy – action-oriented coping (AOC)	13.80 (4.71)
Pain-related psychologic strain – anger (AR)	18.66 (6.51)
Cognitive coping strategy – cognitive restructuring (CR)	13.63 (4.55)
Cognitive coping strategy – self-efficacy (SE)	14.48 (4.47)
Behavioral coping – mental distraction (MD)	12.14 (4.35)
Behavioral coping – counter-activities (CA)	11.84 (4.55)
Behavioral coping – relaxation (RE)	11.69 (5.02)
Pain-related psychologic strain – apprehension (AN)	15.68 (5.08)
CPAQ^Citation30,g (0–120, M, SD)	53.39 (18.61)

Notes:

a With regard to the KoMo-Score and expanded KoMo-Score, higher values mean higher comorbidity and multimorbidity

b with regard to the FIQ-G, a higher value means higher disease impact

c with regard to the IPQ-COH, a higher value signifies higher perceived coherence

d concerning the HADS-D, higher values mean higher levels of anxiety or depression (values ≤7: inconspicuous, values between 8–10: borderline, values ≥11: conspicuous);⁶¹

e with regard to the ASES-D, a higher value means higher perceived efficacy

f with regard to the FESV, higher values mean a better coping with pain

g with regard to the CPAQ, a higher value means higher acceptance of pain.

Abbreviations: M, Mean; SD, standard deviation; FMS, fibromyalgia syndrome; KoMo-Score, rehabilitation-specific comorbidity score; FIQ-G, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, German Version; IPQ-COH, Coherence scale of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire, German version; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, German version; ASES, Arthritis self-efficacy short-form scale, German version; FESV, German Pain Coping Questionnaire, German version; CPAQ, Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, German version.

Table 2 Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of KOPRA items and scales

KOPRA items	M	SD
Scale: Patient participation and patient orientation (PPO)	76.65	18.76
Set treatment and therapy measures in a joint discussion with you.	4.31	0.79
Weigh the advantages and disadvantages of different treatment options with you.	4.27	0.82
Discuss the treatment plan with you.	4.21	0.84
Discuss the next stage of treatment with you.	4.20	0.84
Ask you what helped you in your treatment and what did not.	4.18	0.85
Explain the procedure of your treatment to you thoroughly.	4.15	0.89
Ask you everything about your illness.	4.04	1.03
Summarize the results at the end of a discussion with you.	4.00	1.06
Ask you how you assess the results of treatment.	3.98	0.91
Explain the procedure for your treatment.	3.96	0.99
Sometimes address personal issues related to your illness.	3.44	1.22
Scale: Effective and open communication (EOC)	83.35	16.44
Inform you openly and directly about things concerning your illness that could be stressful (eg, side effects of a treatment).	4.49	0.72
Listen carefully when you want to say something.	4.45	0.78
Inform you at the end of treatment about the further treatment of your illness.	4.42	0.78
Enable you to ask questions.	4.42	0.72
Explain to you exactly what your diagnosis means.	4.39	0.81
Always tell you everything about your illness, even if it is unpleasant.	4.36	0.80
Ask you at the beginning of treatment to discuss all of your symptoms in detail.	4.31	0.81
Ask about all your symptoms.	4.19	0.89
Ask whether you experience pain during therapy/treatment.	4.18	0.86
Ask you what you want to know about your treatment.	4.07	0.97
Scale: Emotionally supportive communication (ESC)	54.38	21.85
Exude calm during talks.	3.69	1.00
Give you encouragement during talks.	3.38	1.10
Sometimes laugh when talking with you.	3.17	1.19
Always be very even-tempered during talks.	3.12	1.01
Always greet you warmly.	2.91	1.13
Always be optimistic and upbeat during talks with you.	2.75	1.14
Scale: Communication about personal circumstances (CPC)	36.98	23.68
Ask about your personal circumstances in order to find out something about you.	2.88	1.18
Try to develop a personal relationship with you.	2.74	1.23
Sometimes speak with you on a personal level.	2.46	1.18
Occasionally talk to you about private matters.	2.16	1.09
Sometimes talk with you about things that have nothing to do with your illness.	2.15	1.14

Notes: KOPRA items are shown in order of preference within the scales, important aspects of communication first. Instruction: ‘‘On the following pages of this questionnaire we would like you to tell us what is important to you personally when talking with your physician, and what is less important. We are interested in your personal opinion. In this questionnaire you should assess how important various actions of your physician are to you, not whether your physician demonstrates this behavior. Please indicate below how important you consider the given behavior of your physician. Your physician should …’’. Response categories: 1= not so important, 2= somewhat important, 3= important, 4= very important, 5= extremely important. Range for all KOPRA scales: 0–100. Higher mean values indicate higher preferences. Adapted with permission of Elsevier. Farin E, Gramm L, Kosiol D. Development of a questionnaire to assess communication preferences of patients with chronic illness. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82:81–88.³⁴

Abbreviation: KOPRA, (Kommunikationpraeferenzen) communication preferences of patients with chronic illness.

Figure 2 KOPRA scale means of four samples.

Note: Range for all KOPRA scales: 0–100. Higher mean values indicate higher preferences.
Abbreviations: FMS, fibromyalgia syndrome; KOPRA, (Kommunikationpraeferenzen) communication preferences of patients with chronic illness.

Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis

	Patient participation and patient orientation (PPO)	Effective and open communication (EOC)	Emotionally supportive communication (ESC)	Communication about personal circumstances (CPC)
Block 1
Level of education:
Elementary school	–	–	0.127* (P=0.042)	0.248*** (P<0.001)
Block 2
Expanded KoMo-Score:	–	–	−0.106 (P=0.087)	–
FMS-specific addendum
Block 4
CPAQ score	−0.177** (P=0.005)	−0.144* (P=0.020)	–	–
Scale: anger (FESV)	–	–	0.204** (P=0.001)	0.181** (P=0.003)
Scale: implementation of relaxation (FESV)	–	−0.169** (P=0.007)	–	–
R^2	0.031** (P=0.005)	0.055** (P=0.001)	0.069*** (P<0.001)	0.097*** (P<0.001)

Notes: Standardized regression coefficients (Beta) and coefficient of determination (R²) with significance (P)

*** P<0.001

** P<0.01

* P<0.05; – = not in the model. Block 3 was not included because there were no significant predictors.

Abbreviations: KoMo-Score, rehabilitation-specific comorbidity score; FMS, fibromyalgia syndrome; CPAQ, Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, German version; FESV, German Pain Coping Questionnaire.

GlattackerMMeixnerKFarinEJäckelWHEntwicklung eines rehabilitationsspezifischen Komorbiditätsscores und Prüfung der methodischen Gütekriterien [Development and psychometric testing of a rehabilitation specific comorbidity score]Phys Med Rehab Kuror200717260270 German

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

OffenbaecherMWaltzMSchoepsPValidation of a German version of the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-G)J Rheumatol2000271984198810955342

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moss-MorrisRWeinmanJPetrieKJHorneRCameronLDBuickDThe Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R)Psychol Health200217116

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HerrmannCBussUSnaithRPHADS-D – Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Deutsche Version: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Angst und Depressivität in der somatischen MedizinBernHans Huber1995 German

 Google Scholar

MüllerAHartmannMMüllerKValidation of the arthritis self-efficacy short-form scale in German fibromyalgia patientsEur J Pain2003716317112600798

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GeissnerEFESV Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Schmerzverarbeitung (Manual)GöttingenHogrefe2001 German

 Google Scholar

VerraMLAngstFLehmannSAeschlimannATranslation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the German version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ-D)J Pain2006732733616632322

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

NilgesPKösterBSchmidtCOSchmerzakzeptanz – Konzept und Überprüfung einer deutschen Fassung des Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire [Pain acceptance – concept and validation of a German version of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire]Schmerz2007215767 German17111168

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ZigmondASSnaithRPThe Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleActa Psychiatr Scand1983673613706880820

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FarinEGrammLKosiolDDevelopment of a questionnaire to assess communication preferences of patients with chronic illnessPatient Educ Couns201182818820219317

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar