Dataset Information

Pessary management practices for pelvic organ prolapse among Australian health care practitioners: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction and hypothesis

Vaginal pessaries are a low-cost, effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and an alternative to surgery. Whilst traditionally pessary management (PM) has been provided by medical professionals, particularly gynaecologists, recent international studies found other professionals, including physiotherapists and nurses, may be involved. It is unknown which health care practitioners (HCPs) provide PM for POP in Australia or the distribution of services.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study design, a self-reported electronic survey investigated Australian HCPs providing PM for POP. Purposive and snowball sampling targeted HCPs, professional organisations and health care facilities. Descriptive statistics described PM in relation to HCP professional profile, PM provision and geographical location.

Results

There were 536 respondents (324 physiotherapists, 148 specialists, 33 general practitioners (GPs) and 31 nurses providing PM. Most worked within metropolitan regions (n = 332, 64%), 140 (27%) in rural, 108 (21%) in regional and 10 (2%) in remote areas. Most worked privately (n = 418, 85%), 153 (46%) worked publicly and 85 (17%) in both. Ring pessaries were most commonly used, followed by cube and Gellhorn. HCPs reported variable training in PM, and 336 (69%) had no mandatory workplace competency standard; however, 324 (67%) wanted further training. Women travelled long distances to access services.

Conclusions

Doctors, nurses and physiotherapists provided PM in Australia. HCPs had variable training and experience in PM, with rural and remote HCPs particularly wanting further training. This study highlights the need for accessible PM services, standardised and competency-based training for HCPs, and governance structures ensuring safe care.

SUBMITTER: McEvoy K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10590327 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pessary management practices for pelvic organ prolapse among Australian health care practitioners: a cross-sectional study.

McEvoy Katrina K Griffin Rebecca R Harris Melissa M Moger Hannah H Wright Olivia O Nurkic Irena I Thompson Judith J Das Rebekah R Neumann Patricia P

International urogynecology journal 20230524 10

<h4>Introduction and hypothesis</h4>Vaginal pessaries are a low-cost, effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and an alternative to surgery. Whilst traditionally pessary management (PM) has been provided by medical professionals, particularly gynaecologists, recent international studies found other professionals, including physiotherapists and nurses, may be involved. It is unknown which health care practitioners (HCPs) provide PM for POP in Australia or the distribution of services. ...[more]

PMID: 37222737

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProlapse affects 30-40% of women. Those using a pessary for prolapse usually receive care as an outpatient. This trial determined effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) vs clinic-based care (CBC) in relation to condition-specific quality of life (QoL).MethodsParallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial, recruiting from 16 May 2018 to 7 February 2020, with follow-up to 17 September 2021. Women attending pessary clinics, ≥18 years, using a pessary (except Shelf, Gellhorn or Cube), with pessary retained ≥2 weeks were eligible. Limited manual dexterity; cognitive deficit; pregnancy; or requirement for non-English teaching were exclusions. SM group received a 30-min teaching session; information leaflet; 2-week follow-up call; and telephone support. CBC group received usual routine appointments. The primary clinical outcome was pelvic floor-specific QoL (PFIQ-7), and incremental net monetary benefit for cost-effectiveness, 18 months post-randomisation. Group allocation was by remote web-based application, minimised on age, user type (new/existing) and centre. Participants, intervention deliverers, researchers and the statistician were not blinded. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat based. Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN62510577.FindingsThe requisite 340 women were randomised (169 SM, 171 CBC) across 21 centres. There was not a statistically significant difference between groups in PFIQ-7 at 18 months (mean SM 32.3 vs CBC 32.5, adjusted mean difference SM-CBC -0.03, 95% CI -9.32 to 9.25). SM was less costly than CBC. The incremental net benefit of SM was £564 (SE £581, 95% CI -£576 to £1704). A lower percentage of pessary complications was reported in the SM group (mean SM 16.7% vs CBC 22.0%, adjusted mean difference -3.83%, 95% CI -6.86% to -0.81%). There was no meaningful difference in general self-efficacy. Self-managing women were more confident in self-management activities. There were no reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, and 31 unrelated serious adverse events (17 SM, 14 CBC).InterpretationPessary self-management is cost-effective, does not improve or worsen QoL compared to CBC, and has a lower complication rate.FundingNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (16/82/01).

Project description:ObjectiveIn the last decade, many new surgical treatments have been developed to achieve less-invasive approaches to prolapse management. However, limited data exist on how the patterns of care for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) may have changed over the last decade, and whether mesh implantation techniques have influenced the type of specific compartment repair performed. We used a national data set to analyze the temporal trends in patterns of care for women with POP.Study designData were obtained from Public Use Files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for a 5% random sample of national beneficiaries with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis of POP from 1999 through 2009. Current Procedural Terminology, 4th Edition and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes were used to evaluate nonsurgical and surgical management trends for this cohort. Types of surgery were categorized by prolapse compartment and combinations of repairs. After 2005, when applicable codes became available, mesh or graft repairs were also analyzed.ResultsOver the study time period, the number of women with a diagnosis of POP in any 1 year in our 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries remained relatively stable (range, 21,245-23,268 per year). Rates of pessary insertion were also consistent at 11-13% over the study period. Of the women with a prolapse diagnosis, 14-15% underwent surgical repair, and there was little change over time in surgical management patterns based on compartment. Most commonly, multiple compartments were repaired simultaneously. There was a rapid increase in mesh use such that in 2009, 41% of all women who underwent surgery (5.8% of the total cohort) had mesh or graft inserted in their repair. Hysterectomy rates for prolapse decreased over time. Rates of vault suspension at the time of hysterectomy for prolapse were low; however, they showed a relative increase over time (22% in 1999 to 26% in 2009).ConclusionPatterns and rates of prolapse repairs remained relatively unchanged from 1999 through 2009, with an exception of a rapid rise in mesh use. These data suggest that the majority of mesh techniques were used for augmentation purposes only, but did not result in an increase in apical repairs performed in the United States. There remains a disappointingly low rate of vault suspension repairs concomitantly at time of hysterectomy for POP.

Dataset Information

Pessary management practices for pelvic organ prolapse among Australian health care practitioners: a cross-sectional study.

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pessary management practices for pelvic organ prolapse among Australian health care practitioners: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets