RESUMO
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a associação entre qualidade de vida e dor, ansiedade e depressão em indivíduos de 35 a 60 anos. Foram avaliados 304 indivíduos com queixa de dor, divididos em três grupos segundo a característica da dor: dor difusa e crônica (DDC), dor regional (DR) e dor esporádica (DE). A intensidade da dor foi avaliada por uma escala visual analógica, ansiedade pelo Inventário de Ansiedade Traço-Estado (IDATE), depressão pela escala de depressão de Beck (BDS) e a qualidade de vida pelo questionário Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). A média de idade foi 49,1 (6,8), 80,2% eram do sexo feminino e 35% da amostra referiu dor difusa e crônica. Os resultados mostram que o Grupo DDC apresentou os sintomas mais intensos de dor, ansiedade, depressão e pior qualidade de vida, seguido pelo Grupo DR e DE com diferença estatisticamente significante (p<0,001). A correlação entre qualidade de vida e depressão foi forte com r=-0,73 e moderada com dor r=-0,41, ansiedade traço r=-0,65 e estado r=-0,58 (p<0,0001). Os dados apontam correlação negativa entre a qualidade de vida e as variáveis avaliadas e o grupo DDC apresentou os sintomas mais intensos...
The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of quality of life and pain, anxiety, depression in subjects aged 35 to 60 years old. Three hundred and four subjects were evaluated and divided in 3 groups: Chronic and Widespread Pain Group (CWP), Local Pain Group (LP), Sporadic Pain Group (SP). Pain intensity was assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), anxiety by IDATE scale, depression by Beck Depression Scale and quality of life by Medical Outcomes Study 36 Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Mean age was 49,1 (6,8) years, 80,2% were women and 35% of the sample reported chronic widespread pain. Results shown more pain, anxiety and depression and worst quality of life in CWP group, followed by LP and SP groups (p<0,001). Correlation was strong between quality of life and depression (r=-0,73), and moderate between quality of life and pain (r=-0,41), anxiety trace (r=-0,65) and state (r=-0,58) (p<0,0001). Data show negative correlation for quality of life and the variables assessed and the CWP group reported the most intense symptoms...
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ansiedade , Depressão , Dor , Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of fibromyalgia, as well as to assess the major symptoms of this syndrome in an adult, low socioeconomic status population assisted by the primary health care system in a city in Brazil. METHODS: We cross-sectionally sampled individuals assisted by the public primary health care system (n = 768, 35-60 years old). Participants were interviewed by phone and screened about pain. They were then invited to be clinically assessed (304 accepted). Pain was estimated using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Fibromyalgia was assessed using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), as well as screening for tender points using dolorimetry. Statistical analyses included Bayesian Statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis Anova test (significance level = 5%). RESULTS: From the phone-interview screening, we divided participants (n = 768) in three groups: No Pain (NP) (n = 185); Regional Pain (RP) (n = 388) and Widespread Pain (WP) (n = 106). Among those participating in the clinical assessments, (304 subjects), the prevalence of fibromyalgia was 4.4% (95% confidence interval [2.6%; 6.3%]). Symptoms of pain (VAS and FIQ), feeling well, job ability, fatigue, morning tiredness, stiffness, anxiety and depression were statically different among the groups. In multivariate analyses we found that individuals with FM and WP had significantly higher impairment than those with RP and NP. FM and WP were similarly disabling. Similarly, RP was no significantly different than NP. CONCLUSION: Fibromyalgia is prevalent in the low socioeconomic status population assisted by the public primary health care system. Prevalence was similar to other studies (4.4%) in a more diverse socioeconomic population. Individuals with FM and WP have significant impact in their well being.
