The Relation between Patient-Centered Care and Quality of Life in Women with Endometriosis

Patient preference for treatment of an endometrioma, a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this qualitative study was to identify considerations, objections, and preferences of women with symptomatic ovarian endometrioma in the shared decision-making process.

DESIGN

This study was conducted as a qualitative study, including twenty patients facing or faced therapeutic treatment options for an ovarian endometrioma.

SETTING

Four focus groups were held between February 2020 and June 2021 in the Netherlands. Two of them were held online due to COVID-19 pandemic.

POPULATION

A qualitative study was performed using semi-structured in-depth focus group methodology. All women, aged 27-44 years, suffered from pain.

METHODS

The focus groups were audio recorded and fully transcribed using ATLAS-ti. Grounded theory methodology was applied for data analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measure includes the most important aspects during decision-making process for patients facing or faced therapeutic treatment options for an ovarian endometrioma.

RESULTS

A total of twenty Dutch women with an ovarian endometrioma were included. Participants named "relief of pain", "fertility", "adverse effects or surgical complications", "recurrence of pain and lesions", and "time untill treatment effect occurs" as most important aspects during their decision-making process. In addition, women often felt "unheard", so more attention should be paid to symptoms of endometriosis.

CONCLUSION

Participants named "relief of pain", "fertility", "adverse effects or complications", "recurrence of pain and lesions", and "time untill treatment effect occurs" as most important aspects during their decision-making process.

The Evidence-Based Medicine Management of Endometriosis Should Be Updated for the Limitations of Trial Evidence, the Multivariability of Decisions, Collective Experience, Heuristics, and Bayesian Thinking

Background/Objectives: The diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis should be based on the best available evidence. Emphasising the risk of bias, the pyramid of evidence has the double-blind, randomised controlled trial and its meta-analyses on top. After the grading of all evidence by a group of experts, clinical guidelines are formulated using well-defined rules. Unfortunately, the impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) on the management of endometriosis has been limited and, possibly, occasionally harmful. Methods: For this research, the inherent problems of diagnosis and treatment were discussed by a working group of endometriosis and EBM specialists, and the relevant literature was reviewed. Results: Most clinical decisions are multivariable, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot handle multivariability because adopting a factorial design would require prohibitively large cohorts and create randomization problems. Single-factor RCTs represent a simplification of the clinical reality. Heuristics and intuition are both important for training and decision-making in surgery; experience, Bayesian thinking, and learning from the past are seldom considered. Black swan events or severe complications and accidents are marginally discussed in EBM since trial evidence is limited for rare medical events. Conclusions: The limitations of EBM for managing endometriosis and the complementarity of multivariability, heuristics, Bayesian thinking, and experience should be recognized. Especially in surgery, the value of training and heuristics, as well as the importance of documenting the collective experience and of the prevention of complications, are fundamental. These additions to EBM and guidelines will be useful in changing the Wild West mentality of surgery resulting from the limited scope of EBM data because of the inherent multivariability, combined with the low number of similar interventions.

Towards comprehensive management of symptomatic endometriosis: beyond the dichotomy of medical versus surgical treatment

Except when surgery is the only option because of organ damage, the presence of suspicious lesions, or the desire to conceive, women with endometriosis-associated pain often face a choice between medical and surgical treatment. In theory, the description of the potential benefits and potential harms of the two alternatives should be standardized, unbiased, and based on strong evidence, enabling the patient to make an informed decision. However, doctor's opinion, intellectual competing interests, local availability of specific services and (mis)information obtained from social media, and online support groups can influence the type of advice given and affect patients' choices. This is compounded by the paucity of robust data from randomized controlled trials, and the anxiety of distressed women who are eager to do anything to alleviate their disabling symptoms. Vulnerable patients are more likely to accept the suggestions of their healthcare provider, which can lead to unbalanced and physician-centred decisions, whether in favour of either medical or surgical treatment. In general, treatments should be symptom-orientated rather than lesion-orientated. Medical and surgical modalities appear to be similarly effective in reducing pain symptoms, with medications generally more successful for severe dysmenorrhoea and surgery more successful for severe deep dyspareunia caused by fibrotic lesions infiltrating the posterior compartment. Oestrogen-progestogen combinations and progestogen monotherapies are generally safe and well tolerated, provided there are no major contraindications. About three-quarters of patients with superficial peritoneal and ovarian endometriosis and two-thirds of those with infiltrating fibrotic lesions are ultimately satisfied with their medical treatment although the remainder may experience side effects, which may result in non-compliance. Surgery for superficial and ovarian endometriosis is usually safe. When fibrotic infiltrating lesions are present, morbidity varies greatly depending on the skill of the individual surgeon, the need for advanced procedures, such as bowel resection and ureteral reimplantation, and the availability of expert colorectal surgeons and urologists working together in a multidisciplinary approach. The generalizability of published results is adequate for medical treatment but very limited for surgery. Moreover, on the one hand, hormonal drugs induce disease remission but do not cure endometriosis, and symptom relapse is expected when the drugs are discontinued; on the other hand, the same drugs should be used after lesion excision, which also does not cure endometriosis, to prevent an overall cumulative symptom and lesion recurrence rate of 10% per postoperative year. Therefore, the real choice may not be between medical treatment and surgery, but between medical treatment alone and surgery plus postoperative medical treatment. The experience of pain in women with endometriosis is a complex phenomenon that is not exclusively based on nociception, although the role of peripheral and central sensitization is not fully understood. In addition, trauma, and especially sexual trauma, and pelvic floor disorders can cause or contribute to symptoms in many individuals with chronic pelvic pain, and healthcare providers should never take for granted that diagnosed or suspected endometriosis is always the real, or the sole, origin of the referred complaints. Alternative treatment modalities are available that can help address most of the additional causes contributing to symptoms. Pain management in women with endometriosis may be more than a choice between medical and surgical treatment and may require comprehensive care by a multidisciplinary team including psychologists, sexologists, physiotherapists, dieticians, and pain therapists. An often missing factor in successful treatment is empathy on the part of healthcare providers. Being heard and understood, receiving simple and clear explanations and honest communication about uncertainties, being invited to share medical decisions after receiving detailed and impartial information, and being reassured that a team member will be available should a major problem arise, can greatly increase trust in doctors and transform a lonely and frustrating experience into a guided and supported journey, during which coping with this chronic disease is gradually learned and eventually accepted. Within this broader scenario, patient-centred medicine is the priority, and whether or when to resort to surgery or choose the medical option remains the prerogative of each individual woman.