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

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.

Keywords

Women pelvic pain physical therapy modalities treatment outcome

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Engeler

Baranowski

Borovicki

, et al. Guidelines on chronic pelvic pain. European Association of Urology. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/chronic-pelvic-pain (2022, accessed 7 November 2022).

Pain Australia. Pelvic pain. https://www.painaustralia.org.au/about-pain/forms-of-pain-2021/pelvic-pain-2021 (2021, accessed 20 April 2021).

Armour

Lawson

Wood

, et al. The cost of illness and economic burden of endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain in Australia: a national online survey. PLoS One 2019; 14(10): e0223316.

Pelvic Pain Steering Group. The $6 billion woman and the $600 million girl. The pelvic pain report, pelvic pain foundation - pelvic pain report. (2011, accessed 20 April 2021).

Ballweg

ML.

Impact of endometriosis on women’s health: comparative historical data show that the earlier the onset, the more severe the disease. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 18(2): 201–218.

Armour

Ferfolja

Curry

, et al. The prevalence and educational impact of pelvic and menstrual pain in Australia: a National Online Survey of 4202 young women aged 13-25 years. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2020; 33: 511–518.

O’Hara

Rowe

Fisher

Managing endometriosis: a cross-sectional survey of women in Australia. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2022; 43: 265–272.

Till

As-Sanie

Schrepf

Psychology of chronic pelvic pain: prevalence, neurobiological vulnerabilities, and treatment. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2019; 62(1): 22–36.

Department of Health. National action plan for endometriosis. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-action-plan-for-endometriosis (2018, accessed 20 April 2021).

10.

Berghmans

Physiotherapy for pelvic pain and female sexual dysfunction: an untapped resource. Int Urogynecol J 2018; 29: 631–638.

11.

Wood

Hendrick

PA.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of pain neuroscience education for chronic low back pain: short-and long-term outcomes of pain and disability. Eur J Pain 2019; 23: 234–249.

12.

Scascighini

Toma

Dober-Spielmann

, et al. Multidisciplinary treatment for chronic pain: a systematic review of interventions and outcomes. Rheumatology 2008; 47: 670–678.

13.

van Middelkoop

Rubinstein

Kuijpers

, et al. A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J 2011; 20: 19–39.

14.

Kamper

Apeldoorn

Chiarotto

, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; CD000963. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000963.pub3

15.

Banerjee

Argáez

Multidisciplinary treatment programs for patients with chronic non-malignant pain: a review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines. Ottawa: CADTH (CADTH rapid response report: summary with critical appraisal). https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/htis/2017/RC0894-TxProgram-Pain%20Final.pdf (2017, accessed 20 April 2021).

16.

Louw

Zimney

Puentedura

, et al. The efficacy of pain neuroscience education on musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review of the literature. Physiother Theory Pract 2016; 32: 332–355.

17.

Mardon

Leake

Szeto

, et al. Treatment recommendations for the management of persistent pelvic pain: a systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines. BJOG 2022; 129: 1248–1260.

18.

Reavey

Vincent

Chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2022; 32(1): 8–13.

19.

Vincent

Evans

An update on the management of chronic pelvic pain in women. Anaesthesia 2021; 76 Suppl 4(4): 96–107.

20.

Schulz

Altman

Moher

. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332.

21.

Etikan

Musa

Alkassim

Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat 2016; 5: 1–4.

22.

Moseley

Butler

The explain pain handbook: protectometer. Adelaide; Noigroup Publications, 2015.

23.

Bourdel

Alves

Pickering

, et al. Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: how to choose a scale? Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21(1): 136–152.

24.

Chalmers

Catley

Evans

, et al. Clinical assessment of the impact of pelvic pain on women. Pain 2017; 158(3): 498–504.

25.

Yalcin

Bump

RC.

Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 98–101.

26.

Catley

O’Connell

Moseley

GL.

How good is the neurophysiology of pain questionnaire? A Rasch analysis of psychometric properties. J Pain 2013; 14: 818–827.

27.

Nicholas

MK.

The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: taking pain into account. Eur J Pain 2007; 11: 153–163.

28.

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS). Psychology foundation of Australia. http://www2.psy.unsw.edu.au/dass (accessed 20 April 2021).

29.

Sullivan

MJL

Bishop

Pivik

The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess 1995; 7: 524–532.

30.

Gerlinger

Schumacher

Wentzeck

, et al. How can we measure endometriosis-associated pelvic pain? J Endometr 2012; 4(3): 109–116.

31.

Leeuw

Goossens

Linton

, et al. The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain: current state of scientific evidence. J Behav Med 2007; 30: 77–94.

32.

Alappattu

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.

33.

Katz

Fransson

Patterson

The development and efficacy of an interdisciplinary chronic pelvic pain program. Can Urol Assoc J 2021; 15(6): E323–E328.