Does group physiotherapy improve pain scores and reduce the impact of pelvic pain for women referred with persistent pelvic pain? A clinical trial

IF 0.6 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1177/22840265221141527
T. Beaumont, Kate Phillips, M. L. Hull, R. Green
{"title":"Does group physiotherapy improve pain scores and reduce the impact of pelvic pain for women referred with persistent pelvic pain? A clinical trial","authors":"T. Beaumont, Kate Phillips, M. L. Hull, R. Green","doi":"10.1177/22840265221141527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study aimed to test group Physiotherapy sessions – pain education and supervised exercise − in addition to individual consultations, for women referred with persistent pelvic pain (with/without endometriosis), with the primary outcomes being pain scores and pain impact. Methods: Parallel study design with three treatment arms: (1) usual care: a suite of individual Physiotherapy consultations; (2) introductory group pain education session followed by usual care and (3) introductory group pain education session followed by usual care and an 8-week supervised group exercise programme. Results: Ninety women were recruited (30/treatment arm), with 66 women (73%) completing their allocated treatment. Participants were aged between 16 and 51 years; endometriosis was confirmed in 41% (n = 27/66) of the study population. Data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistically significant gains (p < 0.05) in pain scores and pelvic pain impact scores were observed in all arms. Between groups, there was statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in pelvic pain impact score for those who attended the group pain education session followed by usual care (arm 2), compared to usual care (arm 1) alone. There was no significant added improvement with the weekly supervised group exercise programme (arm 3), when compared to those who received the group pain education programme and usual care (arm 2). Conclusion: This study has demonstrated positive benefits of a group pain education session on pain scores and pelvic pain impact for women referred with persistent pelvic pain, when added as a precursor to individual Physiotherapy consultations.","PeriodicalId":15725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders","volume":"14 1","pages":"169 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22840265221141527","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: 1

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to test group Physiotherapy sessions – pain education and supervised exercise − in addition to individual consultations, for women referred with persistent pelvic pain (with/without endometriosis), with the primary outcomes being pain scores and pain impact. Methods: Parallel study design with three treatment arms: (1) usual care: a suite of individual Physiotherapy consultations; (2) introductory group pain education session followed by usual care and (3) introductory group pain education session followed by usual care and an 8-week supervised group exercise programme. Results: Ninety women were recruited (30/treatment arm), with 66 women (73%) completing their allocated treatment. Participants were aged between 16 and 51 years; endometriosis was confirmed in 41% (n = 27/66) of the study population. Data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistically significant gains (p < 0.05) in pain scores and pelvic pain impact scores were observed in all arms. Between groups, there was statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in pelvic pain impact score for those who attended the group pain education session followed by usual care (arm 2), compared to usual care (arm 1) alone. There was no significant added improvement with the weekly supervised group exercise programme (arm 3), when compared to those who received the group pain education programme and usual care (arm 2). Conclusion: This study has demonstrated positive benefits of a group pain education session on pain scores and pelvic pain impact for women referred with persistent pelvic pain, when added as a precursor to individual Physiotherapy consultations.
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
对于持续性骨盆疼痛的妇女,团体物理治疗是否能改善疼痛评分并减少骨盆疼痛的影响?临床试验
引言:这项研究旨在为患有持续性骨盆疼痛(伴有/不伴有子宫内膜异位症)的妇女测试集体理疗课程——疼痛教育和监督锻炼——以及个人咨询,主要结果是疼痛评分和疼痛影响。方法:采用三个治疗组的平行研究设计:(1)常规护理:一套个体理疗咨询;(2) 介绍性小组疼痛教育课程,然后是常规护理和(3)介绍性小组痛苦教育课程,之后是常规护理,以及为期8周的有监督的小组锻炼计划。结果:招募了90名女性(30名/治疗组),其中66名女性(73%)完成了分配的治疗。参与者年龄在16至51岁之间 年;子宫内膜异位症确诊率为41%(n = 27/66)。使用描述性和推断统计学对数据进行分析。统计上显著的收益(p < 0.05)疼痛评分和骨盆疼痛影响评分。两组之间有统计学意义的改善(p < 0.05)。与接受集体疼痛教育计划和常规护理的患者(第2组)相比,每周监督的集体锻炼计划(第3组)没有显著的额外改善。结论:这项研究表明,当将集体疼痛教育课程作为个体理疗咨询的前兆时,对持续性骨盆疼痛的女性的疼痛评分和骨盆疼痛影响具有积极的益处。
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