Group-based multimodal physical therapy in women with chronic pelvic pain: A randomized controlled trial

Ane Sigrid Nygaard, Mona Birgitte Rydningen, Mona Stedenfeldt, Slawomir Wojniusz, Marthe Larsen, Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo, Gro Killi Haugstad, Pål Øian, Ane Sigrid Nygaard, Mona Birgitte Rydningen, Mona Stedenfeldt, Slawomir Wojniusz, Marthe Larsen, Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo, Gro Killi Haugstad, Pål Øian

Abstract

Introduction: Chronic pelvic pain in women is a complex condition, and physical therapy is recommended as part of a broader treatment approach. The objective of this study was to compare structured group-based multimodal physical therapy in a hospital setting (intervention group) with primary-care physical therapy (comparator group) for women with chronic pelvic pain.

Material and methods: Women aged 20-65 years with pelvic pain ≥6 months and referred for physical therapy were eligible. The primary outcome measure was change in the mean pelvic pain intensity from baseline to 12 months, measured using the numeric rating scale (0-10). Secondary outcomes were changes in scores of "worst" and "least" pain intensity, health-related quality of life, movement patterns, pain-related fear of movements, anxiety and depression, subjective health complaints, sexual function, incontinence, and obstructed defecation. The differences between the groups regarding change in scores were analyzed using the independent t test and Mann-Whitney U test. Sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome was performed with a linear regression model adjusted for the baseline value. A P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Of the 62 women included, 26 in the intervention group and 25 in the comparator group were available after 12 months for data collection and analysis. The difference between the groups for change in the mean pain intensity score was -1.2 (95% CI -2.3 to -0.2; P = .027), favoring the intervention group. The intervention group showed greater improvements in respiratory patterns (mean difference 0.9; 95% CI 0.2-1.6; P = .015) and pain-related fear of movements (mean difference 2.9; 95% CI -5.5 to -0.3; P = .032), and no significant differences were observed between the groups for the other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions: Although the reduction in the mean pelvic pain intensity with group-based multimodal physical therapy was significantly more than with primary-care physical therapy, the difference in the change between the groups was less than expected and the clinical relevance is uncertain.

Keywords: body awareness; chronic pelvic pain; group-based; patient education; physical therapy; randomized trial; women.

© 2020 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).

References

REFERENCES

    1. Ayorinde AA, Macfarlane GJ, Saraswat L, Bhattacharya S. Chronic pelvic pain in women: an epidemiological perspective. Womens Health (Lond). 2015;11:851-864.
    1. Engeler DS, Baranowski AP, Borovicka J, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Chronic Pelvic Pain 2017.
    1. Sewell M, Churilov L, Mooney S, Ma T, Maher P, Grover SR. Chronic pelvic pain - pain catastrophizing, pelvic pain and quality of life. Scand J Pain. 2018;18:441-448.
    1. Haugstad GK, Haugstad TS, Kirste UM, et al. Posture, movement patterns, and body awareness in women with chronic pelvic pain. J Psychosom Res. 2006;61:637-644.
    1. Alappattu MJ, Bishop MD. Psychological factors in chronic pelvic pain in women: relevance and application of the fear-avoidance model of pain. Phys Ther. 2011;91(10):1542-1550.
    1. Klotz SGR, Schön M, Ketels G, Löwe B, Brünahl CA. Physiotherapy management of patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP): a systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018;28:1-17.
    1. O'Keeffe M, Hayes A, McCreesh K, Purtill H, O'Sullivan K. Are group-based and individual physiotherapy exercise programmes equally effective for musculoskeletal conditions? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:126-132.
    1. Mehling WE, Gopisetty V, Daubenmier J, Price CJ, Hecht FM, Stewart A. Body awareness: construct and self-report measures. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e5614.
    1. Louw A, Zimney K, Puentedura EJ, Diener I. The efficacy of pain neuroscience education on musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review of the literature. Physiother Theor Pract. 2016;32:332-355.
    1. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J. Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44:1-25.
    1. Borrell-Carrió F, Suchman AL, Epstein RM. The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:576-582.
    1. Bergland A, Olsen CF, Ekerholt K. The effect of psychomotor physical therapy on health-related quality of life, pain, coping, self-esteem, and social support. Physiother Res Int. 2018;23:e1723.
    1. Butler D, Moseley L. Explain pain, 2nd edn. Adelaide, Australia: Noigroup Publications; 2013.
    1. Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2003;14:798-804.
    1. Haugstad GK, Haugstad T, Kirste U, et al. Reliability and validity of a standardized Mensendieck physiotherapy test. Physiother Theory Pract. 2006;22:189-205.
    1. Haugen AJ, Grøvle L, Keller A, Grotle M. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Spine. 2008;33:E595-E601.
    1. EurQol. EQ-5D-5LUser Guide Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument: EuroQol Research Foundation; 2019.
    1. Nettelbladt P, Hansson L, Stefansson CG, Borgquist L, Nordström G. Test characteristics of the Hopkins Symptom Check List-25 (HSCL-25) in Sweden, using the Present State Examination (PSE-9) as a caseness criterion. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1993;28:130-133.
    1. Eriksen HR, Ihlebaek C, Ursin H. A scoring system for subjective health complaints (SHC). Scand J Public Health. 1999;27:63-72.
    1. Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J. The International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire: . J Urol. 2006;175(3):1063-1066.
    1. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44:77-80.
    1. Renzi A, Brillantino A, Di Sarno G, d'Aniello F. Five-item score for obstructed defecation syndrome: study of validation. Surg Innov. 2012;20:119-125.
    1. Traeen B, Stigum H. Sexual problems in 18-67-year-old Norwegians. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38:445-456.
    1. Nygaard AS, Stedenfeldt M, Øian P, Haugstad GK. Characteristics of women with chronic pelvic pain referred to physiotherapy treatment after multidisciplinary assessment: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Pain. 2019;19:355-364.
    1. Haugstad GK, Haugstad TS, Kirste UM, Leganger S, Klemmetsen I, Malt UF. Mensendieck somatocognitive therapy as treatment approach to chronic pelvic pain: results of a randomized controlled intervention study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1303-1310.
    1. Parent M. Handling item-level missing data: simpler is just as good. Couns Psychol. 2016;41:568-600.
    1. IBM. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.; 2017.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;10:28-55.
    1. Allaire C, Williams C, Bodmer-Roy S, et al. Chronic pelvic pain in an interdisciplinary setting: 1-year prospective cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:e1-e12.
    1. Ariza-Mateos MJ, Cabrera-Martos I, Ortiz-Rubio A, Torres-Sanchez I, Rodriguez-Torres J, Valenza MC. Effects of a patient-centered graded exposure intervention added to manual therapy for women with chronic pelvic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:9-16.
    1. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12:38-48.
    1. Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000;85:317-332.
    1. Janssen B, Szende A. Population norms for the EQ-5D. In: Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases J, eds. Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands; 2014:19-30.
    1. Payakachat N, Ali MM, Tilford JM. Can the EQ-5D detect meaningful change? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(11):1137-1154.

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj