Prevalence of Fibromyalgia in Pharmacy Professionals and Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background:The prevalence of fibromyalgia (FM) in pharmacy students and professionals is unknown. This study identifies the prevalence of FM in pharmacy students and professionals using three screening tools and factors associated with its development. Furthermore, this study assesses the level of agreement between the tools and the magnitude of the participants' responses to each item in the screening tools. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted on members of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society using an online questionnaire. The participants were asked to fill three questionnaires: the London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study Screening Questionnaire (LFESSQ), Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) and Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ). Demographic data and factors affecting FM in pharmacy students and professionals were collected and analysed. Results: Two hundred ninety-three participants accessed the survey: most of them were Saudi (93.5%) and females (78.8%) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 29 (8) years. Furthermore, 52% of the participants had generalised body pain. The prevalence of FM using FiRST, LFESSQ Pain, LFESSQ with fatigue criteria and FSQ was 27.1%, 34.9%, 50.9% and 68.4%, respectively. Fleiss' kappa coefficient revealed fair agreement among all three screening tools (kappa = 0.350; p < 0.001). After adjusting for significant variables, the resulting adjusted odds ratio of developing FM was 4.86 in people working for 41-45 h weekly (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-17.84; p = 0.017), 5.16 in people who frequently wake up during sleep (95% CI, 1.85-14.40; p = 0.002) and 12.99 in people with sleep apnea or other sleeping disorders (95% CI, 2.07-81.68; p = 0.006). Conclusion: FM was prevalent among pharmacy students and professionals and was much more than data reported on the general population or other healthcare workers. Traditional factors along with higher working hours were identified as significant variables.

Prevalence of fibromyalgia syndrome in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…One hundred twenty-three unrelated articles were found after a full-text review. Ultimately, eight articles [ 13 – 20 ] were found to be eligible for meta-analysis after 123 publications were excluded based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and quality evaluation (Fig. 1 ).…”

“…The overall sample size within the included articles was 4,868 participants (minimum = 40, maximum = 1,686, average = 608.5). Two articles were published in 2022 [ 15 , 16 ], three articles were published in 2021 [ 13 , 14 , 20 ], one article was published in 2019 [ 17 ], one article was published in 2018 [ 19 ], and one article was published in 2006 [ 18 ]. The studies were conducted in different places in Saudi Arabia, as follows: Taif city [ 16 ], outpatient clinics and the daycare unit in a tertiary care hospital in south-western Saudi Arabia [ 15 ], different hospitals in Saudi Arabia [ 14 ], a non-profit professional Saudi pharmaceutical society [ 13 ], King Abdulaziz University [ 20 ], the rheumatology department of Al-Ameen Hospital in Taif [ 17 ], a single academic institution in Riyadh [ 19 ], and a teaching hospital in Jeddah [ 18 ].…”

Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST): Arabic Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation

“…It is the second most common rheumatic disorder after osteoarthritis, affecting 4.7–5% of all women in European countries [ 2 ] and the USA [ 3 ]. In Saudi Arabia, FM was estimated in the special working population using English diagnostic tools of FM and the prevalence ranged between 27.1–68.4% in pharmacy professionals and students [ 4 ] and 6–8.2% in physicians in training [ 5 ].…”

“…However, epidemiological data of FM in the general population of Saudi Arabia is lacking due to the absence of translated and validated patient reported diagnostic tools. The available epidemiological data in Saudi Arabia used the original FM diagnostic tools in English language and applied it to certain working populations that were able to read and write in English [ 4 , 5 ]. This led to diagnosis being solely based on clinical investigations using the ACR criteria, which is challenging to HCPs.…”