Pain acceptance predicts healthcare utilization in women with chronic pelvic pain

IF 0.6 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders Pub Date : 2022-07-31 DOI:10.1177/22840265221114312
D. Kreher, Rui Li, A. Gubbels
{"title":"Pain acceptance predicts healthcare utilization in women with chronic pelvic pain","authors":"D. Kreher, Rui Li, A. Gubbels","doi":"10.1177/22840265221114312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women is common and costly, and little is known about patient characteristics predicting healthcare utilization within this population. The present study examined the role of pain acceptance and pain catastrophizing, assessed prior to treatment initiation, in predicting future uptake of medical and surgical interventions specifically for pain management. Methods: Our sample comprised women referred to a tertiary gynecological center. Baseline pain catastrophizing and pain acceptance scores were compared across each major medication class and surgery type, as well as across the total number of medication classes and the total number of surgery types using analysis of variance (ANOVA). We then performed multivariable analyses for the association between pain catastrophizing and pain acceptance and treatment utilization by controlling for potential confounders. Results: Three hundred eighteen patients met inclusion criteria. Pain catastrophizing was associated with increased likelihood of neuromodulator prescription, while pain acceptance was associated with reduced likelihood of neuromodulator prescription and fewer medication classes prescribed. Overall, no associations between pain catastrophizing and surgeries were observed, while pain acceptance was significantly associated with lower risk of hysterectomy/oophorectomy. Conclusion: Pain acceptance was a robust predictor of number of medication classes prescribed and use of radical surgeries even when controlling stringently for confounders. It is worth considering routine assessment of pain acceptance early in treatment of CPP to identify those more at-risk of higher treatment utilization, and potentially mitigate this through engagement with appropriate behavioral therapies.","PeriodicalId":15725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders","volume":"14 1","pages":"158 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22840265221114312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women is common and costly, and little is known about patient characteristics predicting healthcare utilization within this population. The present study examined the role of pain acceptance and pain catastrophizing, assessed prior to treatment initiation, in predicting future uptake of medical and surgical interventions specifically for pain management. Methods: Our sample comprised women referred to a tertiary gynecological center. Baseline pain catastrophizing and pain acceptance scores were compared across each major medication class and surgery type, as well as across the total number of medication classes and the total number of surgery types using analysis of variance (ANOVA). We then performed multivariable analyses for the association between pain catastrophizing and pain acceptance and treatment utilization by controlling for potential confounders. Results: Three hundred eighteen patients met inclusion criteria. Pain catastrophizing was associated with increased likelihood of neuromodulator prescription, while pain acceptance was associated with reduced likelihood of neuromodulator prescription and fewer medication classes prescribed. Overall, no associations between pain catastrophizing and surgeries were observed, while pain acceptance was significantly associated with lower risk of hysterectomy/oophorectomy. Conclusion: Pain acceptance was a robust predictor of number of medication classes prescribed and use of radical surgeries even when controlling stringently for confounders. It is worth considering routine assessment of pain acceptance early in treatment of CPP to identify those more at-risk of higher treatment utilization, and potentially mitigate this through engagement with appropriate behavioral therapies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
疼痛接受度预测慢性盆腔疼痛妇女的医疗保健利用率
背景:女性慢性盆腔疼痛(CPP)常见且费用高昂,而且对预测该人群医疗利用率的患者特征知之甚少。本研究考察了在治疗开始前评估的疼痛接受和疼痛灾难在预测未来接受专门用于疼痛管理的医疗和外科干预中的作用。方法:我们的样本包括转诊到三级妇科中心的女性。使用方差分析(ANOVA)比较每种主要药物类别和手术类型的基线疼痛灾难和疼痛接受评分,以及药物类别总数和手术类型总数。然后,我们通过控制潜在的混杂因素,对疼痛灾难与疼痛接受和治疗利用之间的关系进行了多变量分析。结果:318名患者符合入选标准。疼痛灾难性发作与开具神经调节剂处方的可能性增加有关,而疼痛接受与开具神经调制器处方的可能性降低和开具的药物种类减少有关。总体而言,没有观察到疼痛灾难与手术之间的关联,而疼痛接受与子宫切除术/卵巢切除术的风险较低显著相关。结论:即使在严格控制混杂因素的情况下,疼痛接受度也是处方药物种类和根治性手术使用的有力预测指标。值得考虑的是,在CPP治疗的早期对疼痛接受度进行常规评估,以确定那些更有可能获得更高治疗利用率的人,并可能通过适当的行为疗法来缓解这种情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Endometriosis on TikTok: Evaluating social media misinformation and the role of healthcare professionals When cystoscopy catches what laparoscopy misses: The role of cystoscopy in evaluation of bladder endometriosis Comprehensive management of umbilical endometriosis using a unique laparoscopic entry portal (Darwish point) and postoperative Dienogest Chronic pelvic pain: An underrecognised perioperative consideration The Holy Grail of endometriosis biomarkers in the diagnostic process – How much would it be worth and what does it look like?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1