Social network characteristics in fibromyalgia or rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE: To describe trends in the personal social network characteristics of the fibromyalgia patients compared with the network of patients with another chronic disorder such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A structured interview was applied to 10 fibromyalgia patients and 10 matched RA patients. RESULTS: The networks of the 10 fibromyalgia and 10 RA patients were comparable in most respects, namely: the small number of intimate friends, the reliance for support on the spouse and the physician, and the relative lack of new social contacts. Furthermore, the fibromyalgia networks were closed networks within a small geographic area. These networks lacked initiative to establish and maintain relations, and can hardly fulfill the patients' psychosocial needs. CONCLUSION: Based on small numbers, the study provides some evidence that social networks of patients with fibromyalgia are more restricted than those of RA patients. Further studies should include larger numbers of patients to clarify cause and effect relationships and to suggest new directions in the treatment of chronic disorders such as fibromyalgia.

The social network characteristics of fibromyalgia patients compared with healthy controls.

OBJECTIVE: To assess structural social network characteristics and perceived loneliness in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) patients and healthy controls. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective, case-control design was employed using a structured interview and a self-report questionnaire. We studied 25 female FMS patients and 25 matched healthy female controls. RESULTS: FMS patients had statistically significantly (P < 0.05) more intimate friends (mean 4.5) and more health care providers (mean 1.5) than did controls (2.3 and 0.0, respectively). The FMS patients more often initiated the contact with family members (mean 2.1) than did controls (mean 0.8). FMS patients did not perceive themselves as lonelier than controls perceived themselves. While there was a significant negative correlation between loneliness and social network variables among the controls, this relationship was not significant among the FMS patients. Among the patients, there was a strong correlation between the total social network size and the number of intimate friends, whereas in controls, the mean number of acquaintances was strongly correlated with the total network size. CONCLUSION: Compared to healthy controls, the social networks of FMS patients presented more linkages with intimate friends, family members, and health care providers. The lack of correlation between loneliness and social network variables for FMS patients is not what might be expected from social support theory. The assessment of structural social network characteristics along with social support variables may add to our understanding of the social functioning of FMS patients.