1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Psychosocial factors associated with pain and health‐related quality of life in Endometriosis: A systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Objective

          Endometriosis is associated with pain and impaired health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Psychosocial factors have been associated with pain and HRQoL in other conditions, suggesting their potential relevance in Endometriosis. However, the role of psychosocial factors in this population has not been systematically explored yet. This systematic review aims to explore the association of psychosocial factors with pain intensity/severity and HRQoL in women with Endometriosis.

          Databases and Data Treatment

          Observational and experimental studies that explored the association of psychosocial factors with pain and HRQoL in women with Endometriosis were eligible. The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, PsychInfo and Cumulative index of nursing and allied health literature. The methodological quality was assessed, and findings were synthesized using narrative synthesis.

          Results

          Twenty‐seven studies were eligible for inclusion, which included 5419 women with Endometriosis. Catastrophising and anxiety were the factors most consistently associated with greater pain, whilst depression, anxiety and stress were related to worse HRQoL. Findings regarding depression and pain were mixed, and research on social factors was limited.

          Conclusions

          This systematic review highlights the role of psychosocial factors in Endometriosis. Anxiety, depression and catastrophising are suggested as potential treatment targets. The review also indicates the lack of research on other potentially important psychosocial factors, such as avoidance, perceived injustice and social support.

          Significance

          This systematic review explored the role of psychosocial factors in Endometriosis, suggesting that these are associated with pain and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Among the psychosocial factors included, anxiety, depression and catastrophising were the factors most often associated with pain and HRQoL in Endometriosis. These findings highlight the need to target psychological factors in the treatment of women with Endometriosis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A power primer.

              One possible reason for the continued neglect of statistical power analysis in research in the behavioral sciences is the inaccessibility of or difficulty with the standard material. A convenient, although not comprehensive, presentation of required sample sizes is provided here. Effect-size indexes and conventional values for these are given for operationally defined small, medium, and large effects. The sample sizes necessary for .80 power to detect effects at these levels are tabled for eight standard statistical tests: (a) the difference between independent means, (b) the significance of a product-moment correlation, (c) the difference between independent rs, (d) the sign test, (e) the difference between independent proportions, (f) chi-square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables, (g) one-way analysis of variance, and (h) the significance of a multiple or multiple partial correlation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sula.windgassen@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Eur J Pain
                Eur J Pain
                10.1002/(ISSN)1532-2149
                EJP
                European Journal of Pain (London, England)
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1090-3801
                1532-2149
                22 July 2022
                October 2022
                : 26
                : 9 ( doiID: 10.1002/ejp.v26.9 )
                : 1827-1848
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Health Psychology Section Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London London UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Sula Windgassen, Bethlem Royal Hospital, Monks Orchard Road, Beckenham, BR3 3BX, UK.

                Email: sula.windgassen@ 123456kcl.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3029-9149
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1118-7443
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5330-7415
                Article
                EJP2006 EURJPAIN-D-21-00739
                10.1002/ejp.2006
                9543695
                35802060
                30ad6e13-24c3-4939-8919-2adf83b1c652
                © 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation ‐ EFIC ®.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 26 May 2022
                : 07 December 2021
                : 03 July 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 22, Words: 9665
                Funding
                Funded by: King's College London , doi 10.13039/501100000764;
                Funded by: South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust , doi 10.13039/100009362;
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Care (NIHC) Biomedical Research Centre
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                October 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article