4.0 Article

Should endometriosis be managed within a chronic disease framework? An analysis of national policy documents

Journal

AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages 627-634

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AH17185

Keywords

chronic conditions; chronic disease management plan; chronic illness; endometriosis treatment

Funding

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. The aim of this study was to determine whether endometriosis meets the definition for chronic disease in Australian policy documents. Methods. A qualitative case study approach was used to thematically analyse the definitions contained in Australian chronic disease policy documents and technical reports. The key themes were then compared with descriptions of endometriosis in peer-reviewed literature, clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements. Results. The search yielded 18 chronic disease documents that provided a definition or characteristics of chronic disease. The thematic analysis identified key elements of chronic diseases pertaining to onset, causation, duration, treatment, disease course and impact (individual and societal). A comparison with endometriosis descriptions indicated that endometriosis meets five of the six chronic disease key elements. Conclusion. In Australia, long-term and complex conditions are managed within a chronic disease framework and include mechanisms such as chronic disease management plans (CDMPs) to assist with coordination and management of these conditions. Because endometriosis has most of the characteristics of chronic disease, it could potentially be reframed as a chronic disease in endometriosis clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements. Further, the use of CDMPs may provide a mechanism to promote individualised care and multidisciplinary management of this chronic, enigmatic and debilitating disease.

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