4.0 Article

The Emotional Burden of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women Seeking Treatment: A Qualitative Study

Journal

FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages 332-338

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000190

Keywords

emotions; pelvic organ prolapse; psychosocial; qualitative study; well-being

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [5 K12 HD43441-10]
  2. American Urogynecology Society Foundation-Astellas Research Award
  3. Pittsburgh Mind-Body Center Pilot Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective We aimed to qualitatively describe the emotional burden experienced by women seeking treatment for prolapse. We hypothesized that the condition of prolapse would have an impact on women's emotional well-being. Methods Women with stage II or greater symptomatic prolapse participated in focus groups or individual phone interviews. A trained facilitator conducted semi-structured focus groups and interviews. These were audio-taped and transcribed. Two authors coded transcripts and identified themes using an editing approach. The codebook was amended until no new major themes emerged from the data. Results Forty-four women participated (25 in focus groups and 19 in phone interviews). Mean (SD) age of women was 60 (10) years and mean (SD) prolapse leading edge was 3 (2) cm. Analysis revealed the following 3 main themes: (1) emotions associated with the condition of prolapse (minimal emotions, annoyance, irritation, frustration, anger, sadness, anxiety, depression), (2) communicating emotions related to prolapse (to friends, family, healthcare providers), and (3) emotions relating to treatment (both positive and negative effects). Conclusions Prolapse significantly impacts women's emotional health and subjective well-being. An improved understanding of women's emotional experiences of prolapse may help providers better meet patients' needs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available