Australian healthcare professionals’ beliefs and practice behaviours in management of chronic pelvic pain: a cross-sectional survey

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jennifer Vardy, Edwina Chan, Marika Hart, Rebecca Dallin, Emma Wise, Emmanuel Karantanis, Darren Beales
{"title":"Australian healthcare professionals’ beliefs and practice behaviours in management of chronic pelvic pain: a cross-sectional survey","authors":"Jennifer Vardy, Edwina Chan, Marika Hart, Rebecca Dallin, Emma Wise, Emmanuel Karantanis, Darren Beales","doi":"10.1071/py24046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong> Background</strong><p>Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common and debilitating condition, and sufferers present to healthcare professionals with variable complex symptoms and co-morbidities. This study aimed to investigate the current beliefs and practice behaviours of healthcare professionals towards the management of CPP in Australian females.</p><strong> Methods</strong><p>We distributed an online survey to Australian healthcare professionals. Participants were questioned regarding their beliefs, the importance of various contributing factors and assessment variables, and their management preferences for two CPP vignettes. Demographic information and responses were analysed with descriptive statistics.</p><strong> Results</strong><p>Complete data were obtained and analysed from 446 respondents including gynaecologists (<i>n</i> = 75), general practitioners (GPs) (<i>n</i> = 184) and physiotherapists (<i>n</i> = 187). Most of the respondents were female (88.1%), with male (11.7%) and other (0.2%) making up a smaller representation. Physiotherapists rated themselves higher in understanding mechanisms of CPP (64.7% very good to excellent) compared to gynaecologists (41.3%) and GPs (22.8%). Physiotherapists also reported higher levels of confidence in managing patients with CPP (57.8% quite or extremely confident) compared to 41.3% of gynaecologists and 22.3% of GPs who reported being quite or extremely confident. All three professions rated patient’s beliefs (89.8%), nervous system sensitisation (85.7%), stress/anxiety/depression (91.9%), fear avoidance (83.3%), history of sexual/emotional/physical abuse (94.1%) and pelvic floor muscle function (85.0%) as very/extremely important factors in the development of chronic pelvic pain. Most gynaecologists (71.0%) and GPs (70.2%) always referred for pelvic ultrasound during assessment. Physiotherapists assessed goal setting (88.8%) and screened for patients’ beliefs (80.9%) more often than gynaecologists (30.4% and 39.1% respectively) and GPs (46.5% and 29.0% respectively).</p><strong> Conclusions</strong><p>All three groups of healthcare professionals demonstrated a good understanding of pain mechanisms and incorporated a biopsychosocial and multidisciplinary approach to management of females with chronic pelvic pain. However, both gynaecologists and GPs were less confident in their understanding of and management of CPP, and less likely to consider patient beliefs and goals. The findings of this online survey may assist in the provision of more targeted education to further improve management of this condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":8651,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of primary health","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of primary health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/py24046","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common and debilitating condition, and sufferers present to healthcare professionals with variable complex symptoms and co-morbidities. This study aimed to investigate the current beliefs and practice behaviours of healthcare professionals towards the management of CPP in Australian females.

Methods

We distributed an online survey to Australian healthcare professionals. Participants were questioned regarding their beliefs, the importance of various contributing factors and assessment variables, and their management preferences for two CPP vignettes. Demographic information and responses were analysed with descriptive statistics.

Results

Complete data were obtained and analysed from 446 respondents including gynaecologists (n = 75), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 184) and physiotherapists (n = 187). Most of the respondents were female (88.1%), with male (11.7%) and other (0.2%) making up a smaller representation. Physiotherapists rated themselves higher in understanding mechanisms of CPP (64.7% very good to excellent) compared to gynaecologists (41.3%) and GPs (22.8%). Physiotherapists also reported higher levels of confidence in managing patients with CPP (57.8% quite or extremely confident) compared to 41.3% of gynaecologists and 22.3% of GPs who reported being quite or extremely confident. All three professions rated patient’s beliefs (89.8%), nervous system sensitisation (85.7%), stress/anxiety/depression (91.9%), fear avoidance (83.3%), history of sexual/emotional/physical abuse (94.1%) and pelvic floor muscle function (85.0%) as very/extremely important factors in the development of chronic pelvic pain. Most gynaecologists (71.0%) and GPs (70.2%) always referred for pelvic ultrasound during assessment. Physiotherapists assessed goal setting (88.8%) and screened for patients’ beliefs (80.9%) more often than gynaecologists (30.4% and 39.1% respectively) and GPs (46.5% and 29.0% respectively).

Conclusions

All three groups of healthcare professionals demonstrated a good understanding of pain mechanisms and incorporated a biopsychosocial and multidisciplinary approach to management of females with chronic pelvic pain. However, both gynaecologists and GPs were less confident in their understanding of and management of CPP, and less likely to consider patient beliefs and goals. The findings of this online survey may assist in the provision of more targeted education to further improve management of this condition.

澳大利亚医护人员对慢性盆腔疼痛管理的信念和实践行为:横断面调查
背景 慢性盆腔痛(CPP)是一种常见的使人衰弱的疾病,患者向医护人员求诊时会出现各种复杂的症状和并发症。本研究旨在调查医护人员目前对澳大利亚女性慢性盆腔痛的治疗理念和实践行为。方法我们向澳大利亚医护人员发放了一份在线调查问卷。调查内容包括参与者的信念、各种诱发因素和评估变量的重要性,以及他们对两个 CPP 案例的管理偏好。通过描述性统计对人口统计学信息和回答进行了分析。结果获得并分析了 446 名受访者的完整数据,其中包括妇科医生(75 人)、全科医生(184 人)和物理治疗师(187 人)。大多数受访者为女性(88.1%),男性(11.7%)和其他受访者(0.2%)所占比例较小。与妇科医生(41.3%)和全科医生(22.8%)相比,物理治疗师对 CPP 机制的理解程度较高(64.7% 非常好或优秀)。物理治疗师在管理 CPP 患者方面的信心水平也较高(57.8% 相当有信心或非常有信心),相比之下,41.3% 的妇科医生和 22.3% 的全科医生表示相当有信心或非常有信心。所有三个专业都将患者的信念(89.8%)、神经系统敏感性(85.7%)、压力/焦虑/抑郁(91.9%)、恐惧回避(83.3%)、性虐待/情感虐待/身体虐待史(94.1%)和盆底肌肉功能(85.0%)评为慢性盆腔痛发生的非常/极其重要的因素。大多数妇科医生(71.0%)和全科医生(70.2%)在评估过程中都会推荐进行盆腔超声波检查。物理治疗师比妇科医生(分别为 30.4% 和 39.1%)和全科医生(分别为 46.5% 和 29.0%)更经常评估目标设定(88.8%)和筛选患者的信念(80.9%)。结论三组医护人员都对疼痛机制有很好的理解,并采用了生物-心理-社会和多学科方法来治疗女性慢性盆腔疼痛。然而,妇科医生和全科医生在理解和管理慢性盆腔炎方面信心不足,而且不太可能考虑患者的信念和目标。这项在线调查的结果可能有助于提供更有针对性的教育,以进一步改善对这种疾病的管理。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian journal of primary health
Australian journal of primary health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
136
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Primary Health integrates the theory and practise of community health services and primary health care. The journal publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed research, reviews, policy reports and analyses from around the world. Articles cover a range of issues influencing community health services and primary health care, particularly comprehensive primary health care research, evidence-based practice (excluding discipline-specific clinical interventions) and primary health care policy issues. Australian Journal of Primary Health is an important international resource for all individuals and organisations involved in the planning, provision or practise of primary health care. Australian Journal of Primary Health is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of La Trobe University.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信