PURPOSE: to compare the quality of life (QL) of women with and without chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and to investigate the factors associated with QL in women with CPP. METHODS: a cross-sectional study was conducted on 30 women with CPP and 20 women without CPP. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. QL was investigated by applying the SF-36 questionnaire, which contains eight domains: functional capacity, physical aspects, pain, general health status, vitality, social aspects, emotional aspects, and mental health. These domains can be summarized into two groups: physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS). Pain intensity was investigated by applying the visual analogue scale. Linear regression analysis was used to compare QL scores between women with and without CPP and to identify factors associated with the QL of women with CPP. RESULTS: the mean age of women with and without CPP was 35.2±7.5 and 36±9.3 years (p=0.77), respectively. Women with CPP had a lower monthly family income (p=0.04) and a higher prevalence of dysmenorrhea (87 versus 40%; p<0.01) and depression (30 versus 5%; p=0.04) compared to women without CPP. Adjusted analysis for potential confounding variables revealed that women with CPP had lower QL scores in the pain (p<0.01) and social aspects (p<0.01) domains. Depression was negatively associated with the emotional aspects domain (p=0.05) and with the MCS (p=0.03), while pain intensity was negatively related to the pain domain (p<0.01) of the QL of women with CPP. CONCLUSIONS: women with CPP presented a worse QL compared to women without CPP. Depression and pain intensity were negatively related to the QL of women with CPP. Thus, the evaluation and treatment of pain and depressive symptoms must be among the priorities that aim to improve the QL of women with CPP.
CITATION STYLE
Barcelos, P. R., Conde, D. M., de Deus, J. M., & Martinez, E. Z. (2010). Qualidade de vida de mulheres com dor pélvica crônica: Um estudo de corte transversal analítico. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 32(5), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-72032010000500008
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.