Outcomes of Interdisciplinary Programs for Reducing Pain and Disability in Individuals With Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review

Background: The treatment of patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is complex. Reviews and clinical practice guidelines recommend an interdisciplinary approach, but the outcomes of such an approach have not been summarized. This study investigated the outcomes of interdisciplinary programs treating CPP. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycInfo (ProQuest) were searched for English-language publications presenting original research. Selection criteria are the following: adult individuals with CPP being treated by at least 2 different specialties. Risk of bias was assessed using either the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist, or the Joanna Briggs Institute Case Report tool. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen d for studies reporting sufficient data. Results: Data were extracted from 21 studies for review. Two were determined to be of good quality (2 observational studies). The number of health care disciplines included in the interdisciplinary teams ranged from 2 to 7, with physical therapy and psychotherapy the most represented. Forty-nine different outcome measures were used across the 21 studies. This variation precluded meta-analysis, but effect sizes were calculated for 6/21 of the studies (large magnitude: 3 and medium: 3). Discussion: Physical therapy and psychotherapy were the most common disciplines included in interdisciplinary programs managing patients with CPP. A lack of high-quality studies and variation in the outcome measures utilized were highlighted in this review. There is a need for high-quality studies and consensus on the use of outcome measures when investigating the outcomes of interdisciplinary programs treating patients with CPP.