3.8 Article

The Contribution of the Psychologist in the Assessment and Treatment of Fibromyalgia

期刊

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s40674-023-00200-4

关键词

Fibromyalgia; Chronic pain; Psychological assessment; Psychological treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review explores the role of psychologists in the assessment and treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Psychological therapies have been shown to be effective and cost-efficient in improving a wide range of FMS symptoms. Patients with FMS benefit from multidisciplinary treatment that includes education, exercise, and psychotherapeutic approaches.
Purpose of reviewThis review focuses on the role of psychologists in the assessment and treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), a highly prevalent condition characterized by chronic widespread pain, fatigue, cognitive problems, distress, and disability.Recent findingsA large body of work supports the effectiveness and cost-utility of psychological therapies for the improvement of a wide range of symptoms associated with FMS. However, patients with FMS are best assessed and treated by a multidisciplinary team, in which psychologists have an important role. Multidisciplinary treatment, in which each healthcare professional offers his or her own expertise to the patient, has been shown to produce more ubiquitous treatment effects for this complex syndrome than single discipline treatments. Considering the empirical evidence and documented experience of patients, people with FMS can benefit from integrated care, combining education, exercise, and psychotherapeutic approaches, including cognitive-behavioral therapy.There has been a call for more health economics research to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies. In this paper, we highlight the added value of psychologists as members of multidisciplinary treatment teams, who can assess and treat the maladaptive cognitive, emotional, and behavioral symptoms that are commonly seen in individuals with FMS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据