Next Article in Journal
Childhood Prevalence of Involvement with the Child Protection System in Quebec: A Longitudinal Study
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Coal Dust Wettability Identification Based on GA–BP Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 1
10.3390/ijerph20010625
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Does Quality of Care (QoC) Perception Influence the Quality of Life (QoL) in Women with Endometriosis? Results from an Italian Nationwide Survey during Covid Pandemic

by
Vincenza Cofini
,
Mario Muselli
*,
Chiara Lolli
,
Leila Fabiani
and
Stefano Necozione
Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(1), 625; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20010625
Submission received: 25 November 2022 / Revised: 26 December 2022 / Accepted: 27 December 2022 / Published: 29 December 2022
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: Endometriosis is a chronic and progressive illness that generates a slew of issues, lowering the quality of life of women. The purpose of this study was to look at the quality of life in women with endometriosis and how it relates to the quality of care. (2) Methods: This study is an online survey performed in Italy during the COVID pandemic using the Italian version of the Health Questionnaire SF-36 and a questionnaire for assessing the quality of care received. (3) Results: 1052 women with a self-reported diagnosis of endometriosis participated in the survey. The mean levels of Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) were 38.89 ± 10.55 and 34.59 ± 11.17, respectively. A total of 77% of women judged the services they received positively, and 51% considered the coordination between healthcare professionals to be satisfactory. The satisfaction index mean was 23.11 ± 4.80. PCS was positively related to Occupation, high educational level, physical activity, and health care satisfaction. MCS was positively related to higher age, physical activity, and health care satisfaction. (4) Conclusions: The study indicated that satisfaction with health care was a significant predictor of QoL in women with endometriosis, for both physical and mental health.

1. Introduction

Endometriosis is a disease characterized by the presence of tissue resembling the endometrium outside of the uterus [1].
As reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), endometriosis is a chronic and disabling disease of reproductive age, leading to pelvic discomfort and infertility because it creates a persistent inflammatory reaction that may result in the formation of scar tissue (adhesions, fibrosis) inside the pelvis and other regions of the body [2]. It is related to numerous different factors that contribute to its development. Its origin could be due to retrograde menstruation or to cell metaplasia. It could also be due to the cells outside the uterus, which change into endometrial-like cells and start to grow, or to stem cells. Other factors can also contribute to the growth or persistence of ectopic endometriosis. Endometriosis is known to be dependent on estrogen, which facilitates the inflammation, growth, and pain associated with the disease [2]. Common symptoms include pelvic and abdominal non-menstrual pain, ovulatory pain, pain during urination, dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The symptomatology may present in a mild or severe form, with no correlation of symptom severity to the stage of endometriosis [3]. The underlying pathophysiology of endometriosis remains uncertain; numerous hypotheses have been formulated, but none can fully explain the various clinical presentations of the disease. Thus, endometriosis is believed to have a multifactorial origin that includes histologic, hormonal, and immunologic factors [2].
The diagnosis of endometriosis is exclusively laparoscopic, so the actual prevalence rate in the general population remains unknown. However, it is estimated to afflict 10% of all women based on population prevalence estimates of symptoms [4], which means that 176 million women worldwide suffer from endometriosis [5].
The World Health Organization demonstrated the gravity of endometriosis and showed that it could have negative effects on people’s sexual and reproductive health, quality of life (QoL), and overall well-being [4]. Several studies before the pandemic highlighted that this disease and its complications can have an impact on QoL, affecting physical and psychological health and social and working life [6,7,8,9,10]. The QoL is negatively related to anxiety and depression in women with endometriosis [11]. The relationship between QoC and QoL has often been debated [12]. Chronic pathologies, such as endometriosis, require careful and continuous management. Thus, the quality of care (QoC) and the management of the disease are considered fundamental conditions for the effective prevention of complications and the improvement of the quality of life of patients [13,14].
The spread of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Italy during 2020 forced the National Health Service to interrupt some health services, which were subsequently reorganized based on the implementation of all the prevention measures necessary for the containment of the infection [15,16,17]. The health emergency had a negative impact on the services offered by the National Health System, with the reshaping of deferred scheduled interventions, the postponement of visits and instrumental examinations, and the interruption of prevention and health promotion activities [18,19,20,21]. In this situation, there was a concern for medium and long-term consequences to health, with particular regard to frail people or patients with chronic diseases, such as endometriosis, taking into account the difficulties related to the management and the impact on the quality of life of these diseases [22,23,24,25].
As reported in the literature, patient-oriented care could help the quality life of women with endometriosis, in particular if it guarantees “continuity”, “respect” and “information” [26]. Furthermore, the COVID pandemic had an impact on mental health in the general population and specific groups such as healthcare workers, patients, the elderly, and students [27,28,29,30]. According to our hypothesis, the spread of the epidemic and the changes that took place in the management of healthcare could have had an impact on the quality of care of patients with endometriosis, and consequently on their perceived quality of life. To the best of our knowledge, there were no studies carried out during the pandemic aimed at investigating the quality of life in women with endometriosis and the eventual impact on it or the quality of care, at least not in Italy. This study aims to contribute to the knowledge of this phenomenon by investigating the perceived quality of life of women with endometriosis living in Italy considering the quality of perceived care among the possible predictors of physical and mental quality of life.

2. Materials and Methods

This was an online survey carried out from July to September 2021 that was authorized by the Internal Review Board (IRB) of the University of L’Aquila (Protocol number 26/2021).

2.1. Participants and Recruiments

The project and the research objectives were presented with an information note disseminated through the support and awareness-raising activity of the administrators of the groups of Italian women with endometriosis registered on social networks such as Facebook and Instagram. Various associations were also contacted, and the dissemination and awareness of participation were also supported by three public figures on Instagram. The inclusion criteria included being a woman, living in Italy, having received a diagnosis of endometriosis, and understanding the Italian language. The exclusion criteria were age < 18 and the lack of informed consent and data processing authorization. Each participant was guaranteed anonymity and respect for privacy.

2.2. Tools

A self-reported questionnaire created on the Google Forms web platform was used for the survey, which was developed after a literature review on the quality of life in the population investigated and validated with a group of 55 women with endometriosis (see in Supplementary Materials). The questionnaire included items to provide socio-demographic data, including smoking, alcohol consumption (intake of at least one drink per day) and clinical information about BMI, time of endometriosis diagnosis, pregnancy, treatment, complications related to endometriosis, and comorbidities. It also included the following sections:
Perceived quality of life: For this section, the Italian version of the Health Questionnaire SF-36 V2 Standard was used [31,32]. The SF-36 is a standardized questionnaire that allows one to assess perceived physical and mental health. It is articulated through 36 questions to evaluate 8 subscales (domains): physical functioning (PF), role limitations due to physical health (RF), role limitations due to emotional problems (RE), pain (P), general health (GH), vitality (energy/fatigue: EF), social functioning (SF), and emotional well-being (EW). From SF-36 sub-scales scoring, the following standardized components were calculated: physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS). Higher scores indicate a better quality of life [33].
Quality of care received: this was assessed through 12 items: 11 were from a validated questionnaire for assessing the quality of care for people with diabetes [34,35]. Respondents were asked to rate the satisfaction regarding the health care unit that primarily took care of them during the last 12 months concerning the following:
  • Opening hours of the structure;
  • Accessibility of the rooms;
  • Cleanliness and agreeability;
  • Courtesy and helpfulness;
  • Understandable explanations;
  • Being listened to;
  • Waiting times from booking to the visit;
  • Waiting time from arrival to the hospital/clinic;
  • Waiting time from arrival to visit;
  • Overall rating of the service offered in the last 12 months.
  • Judgment on the level of coordination between all services and professionals who deal with the disease.
Each item provided four options: two positives, including “excellent/good”, or “adequate/excellent”, and two less favorable, as, for example “not adequate, just adequate”, or “not sufficient, sufficient”. A final satisfaction index ranging from 0 to 36 was calculated by assigning a score from 0 to 3 to the four options. Higher scores indicated better quality of care.
Women were also asked to report the perception of the impact of the COVID pandemic (neutral/positive/negative) on the quality of health care.

2.3. Sample Size

This study involved a convenience sample obtained with the Snowball sampling technique via emails, social media networks, and instant messaging applications. For the estimate of the sample size, referring to a large population (considering the number of members of groups or associations > 30,000), to a precision of ±3% with a 95% confidence interval, to a response level for a single parameter equal to 50%, the estimated sample size was 1032 units [36].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Absolute frequencies and percentages or mean and standard deviations were calculated for each categorical or numerical variable. Comparisons between continuous variables were carried out with a Student’s t-test for independent samples or the non-parametric analogue if the normal conditions of the variables were not met. To analyze the factors related to quality of life, we ran two robust regression models for PCS and MCS as dependent variables, and the following independent variables which had been evidenced in other studies, to be related to quality of life in women with endometriosis [37]: age, occupational status (yes/no), educational level (high/how), BMI, physical activity (yes/no), smoker (yes/no), alcohol consumption (yes/no), full-term pregnancy (yes/no), surgical treatment (yes/no), hormonal treatments-lifetime perspective (yes/no), comorbidities (yes/no), clinical complications (yes/no), and satisfaction index, which was investigated as a new variable in this article, as reported in Figure 1).
Variables entered into regression models were collected on women who had had a medical visit for endometriosis in the 12 months prior to the interview. Data on pregnant women were excluded from the analyses. We first performed a univariate analysis to explore the separate effect of a variable on the summary components PCS and MCS, then two multivariable robust regression models for PCS and MCS were run adjusting for all factors or covariates investigated. All analyses were performed using STATA 14 software [38].

3. Results

One thousand sixty-five women with a self-reported diagnosis of endometriosis participated in the survey. The characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1. The average age of the participants was 35 years (SD: 8). Only 24 women were of foreign nationality, and 62% indicated that they were married or cohabiting. A total 11% have a low level of education (elementary/middle school), 45% have a high school diploma, and about 44% have a degree and post-graduate degree. A total of 304 reported having completed one or more pregnancies (29%), about 47% were diagnosed with endometriosis between the ages of 20–29, and in 35% of cases the time elapsed between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis was at least 10 years. Some 61% (649) underwent surgery for endometriosis, and most reported having complications from it (n = 824: 77%).
We found that the highest score reported by women interviewed was for physical functioning, with a mean of 66.65 (+/−27.12), while the mean level of vitality was the lowest: 35.70 (+/−18.40). The mean levels of PCS and MCS were 38.89 (+/−10.55) and 34.59 (+/−11.17), respectively (Table 2).
One hundred and seventy-eight women out of 1065 interviewed reported that they had not received any kind of medical care in the last 12 months, while 889 of the participants had a medical visit during the 12 months prior to the study; most of them (710/889: 80%) were treated in a specialized center for endometriosis, while the remaining 20% visited a gynecologist or family doctor.
As reported in Table 3, over 80% of the subsample of 889 participants who had a medical visit during the previous 12 months expressed positive evaluations (good or excellent) with respect to the opening hours of the facilities (approximately 86%), accessibility of the premises (approximately 95%) cleanliness and pleasantness (94%), courtesy and availability (85%), understanding (about 81%). A total of 73% of women reported being listened to often and always. In general, 77% of women judged the services received positively (good or excellent), and 51% considered the coordination between the professionals involved in the care to be satisfactory (good or excellent). The global satisfaction index mean was 23.11 (4.8), with a median of 24 and a range from 5 to 34.
Considering the negative perceptions of quality of the first eight dimensions investigated, as indicated in the previous table, due to the COVID pandemic, most of the participants (41%) reported the waiting times from booking to the visit were lengthened, and it was the dimension most affected by the pandemic; in contrast, the least affected was cleanliness and agreeability (2%).
As reported in Table 4, a multivariable regression analysis showed that PCS was positively related to occupation (beta = 2.301; p = 0.002), high educational level (beta = 3.206; p < 0.001), physical activity (beta = 2.030; p = 0.003), and health care satisfaction (beta = 0.382; p < 0.001). The quality of physical health in smokers, in alcohol consumers, and in women with children and other diseases was lower. In fact, PCS was negatively associated with smoking (beta = −2.286; p = 0.006), alcohol use (beta = 2.038; p = 0.009), full- term pregnancy (beta = −2.513; p = 0.003), and comorbidities (beta = −5.035; p < 0.001), (Table 4).
As reported from the multivariable regression analysis, factors such as age, physical activity, smoking, comorbidities, and health care satisfaction were significantly associated with quality of mental health. Quality of mental health was higher in older women (beta = 0.151; p = 0.012), in women who practiced physical activity (beta = 1.867; p = 0.018), and in women satisfied with their health care (beta = 0.438; p < 0.001). Women who smoked and women who reported comorbidities had the lowest level of MCS (beta= −2.298, p = 0.016; and beta= −1.645, p = 0.036 respectively) (Table 5).

4. Discussion

This was an online cross-sectional survey which included standardized measures, and 1065 records were collected at the closing date of the recruitment process. The geographical distribution of responses was 40% from Northern Italy, 22% from Central Italy and 38% from Southern Italy and the Islands. It was compatible to the distribution of the Italian female population in the three territorial areas: the North, Center, South, and the Islands, according to the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) [39]. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to investigate the quality of life among women with endometriosis during the COVID pandemic in Italy.
It is known that the quality of life in women with endometriosis is severely tested because the disease impacts physical and mental health and, consequently, social life [40].
Some research has shown that endometriosis, whether symptomatic or pain-free, reduces quality of life, work productivity, and mental health (e.g., anxiety and depression) [10,41,42] because it is characterized by uncertainty about the course of the disease and the future in general, with pervasive concerns about crucial aspects of a woman’s life, such as sexuality and infertility [43]. Endometriosis-related mental distress may be correlated with increasing age [43,44].
Our results showed that 85% of participants were diagnosed with endometriosis between the ages of 20–39 years. The mean diagnostic delay was estimated to be 7 years (SD = 3): most of the interviewees (57%) reported having been diagnosed at least 5 years after the onset of symptoms, and 367 women (35%) were diagnosed after 10 years or more. These results are in line with the Italian national average [45].
Diagnostic delay can result in increased symptoms and illness severity, the worsening of physical and psychological sequelae, and delayed access to adequate treatment and care, all of which lead to higher healthcare consumption and expenditures [46,47,48].
Diagnostic delay is usually a factor in chronic illnesses, and it is especially common in endometriosis since the diagnosis is dependent on histological confirmation. Furthermore, endometriosis-related stigma is an emerging factor associated with diagnostic delay, and a lack of endometriosis awareness among women, their families, and intimate partners, as well as health care providers and the general population, perpetuates stigma and its negative effects on health and psychosocial well-being [49].
A total of 64% of participants (677/1065) were treated with hormonal therapies. This finding could be related to the recommendations by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Medical therapy should be recommended for women with symptomatic endometriosis and should be aimed at controlling pain and preventing the progression of existing lesions. The most common pharmacological treatment is the hormonal type, mainly based on estrogen-progestogen pills, progestin pills or GNRH analogues [50].
In this study, 716 (67.2%) women had dyspareunia, and 672 (63.1%) had chronic pelvic pain. These are the most frequently reported symptoms among women with endometriosis [51,52], and previous studies reported that dyspareunia and pain negatively affect sexual life and quality of life in general in women with endometriosis [40,53]. In fact, it is no coincidence that in this survey the perception of quality of life, the domain linked to the perception of one’s own state of health, was the lowest (mean = 37.18, SD = 20.77), together with the domain of vitality (energy/fatigue), with an average of 35.70 (SD = 18.40). Our sample perceived level of physical health quality to be higher than mental health: PCS = 38.89 (SD = 10.55) and MCS = 34.59 (SD = 11.17). These results are in line with data reported by He G and colleagues, even if they were higher if calculated in all samples (PCS: 42.0 ± 8.99; MCS: 44.0 ± 11.91), and lower in women with anxiety: PCS = 38.4 (8.37) and MCS = 36.4 (11.55) [11].
However, our results are in contrast with the findings reported in a pre-pandemic cross-national study carried-out in Poland by Agnieszka Bień (psychological domain:13.33 ± 2.28, physical domain: 11.52 ± 3.02), where even the QoL was measured with different tools [54], and this could be related to the negative impact that the COVID pandemic had on the population. In particular, a recent study on women with endometriosis during the pandemic highlighted that patients with endometriosis were at a high risk of developing mental symptoms [55], demonstrating the importance of social connections for wellbeing and life satisfaction reported in the pre-pandemic era [56].
To introduce the quality of health care perception as a factor related to QoL, we asked about quality of care to women treated during the previous 12 months, and we had a subsample of 899 women. A total of 106 women (16%) had not had a medical visit for endometriosis during the previous 12 months, and this is an important finding of this study that warns of the need to monitor the health status in this particular patient group. Endometriosis is typically a progressive condition, meaning it can get worse over time [57]; therefore, regular checks are essential to ensure better treatment.
Among women who reported a medical visit, 710 (80%) were treated at an endometriosis center, and 20% were primarily treated by gynecologists and general doctors. Most interviewees (>80%) appeared satisfied with the health services and care they got during the first 12 months of the pandemic. This is a good result considering the effort made to maintain the continuity of health services during the pandemic. Disappointment was reported by only 6% of women (55/889), and it mainly concerned the following aspects: the times of the appointments of the structures (5%: 44/889), the courtesy of the staff (5.5%: 49/889), the patients’ willingness to listen (5%: 44/889), and above all the coordination between the various professional health workers (22%: 195/889).
The multivariable regression analysis showed that occupation (beta = 2.446; p = 0.001) and high educational level (beta = 3.418; p < 0.001) are related to a higher PCS. Despite the universal nature of the Italian NHS, a diagnosis of endometriosis probably has a direct and indirect impact on the economic situation of the patients and their families [58], since women often need to move to specialized centers that are far from their place of residence, and this could be related to the problem of inequalities in health care [59,60,61]. Our results are in line with studies by other authors showing that women with endometriosis with a higher level of education have a better quality of life in the physical domain) [54,62]. In addition, according to Bień, family wealth and financial resources are important factors in the treatment of endometriosis and its complications, and are related to QoL [54].
The quality of physical health improves with physical activities (beta = 2.030; p = 0.003) and health care satisfaction (beta = 0.382; p < 0.001), as reported above. In their study, Goncalves et al. [63] reported that the degree of daily pain was significantly lower in the group of women who engaged in physical activity. However, a previous meta-analysis [64] found that the relationship between physical activity and endometriosis has been inconsistent, and this aspect should be investigated more comprehensively [65].
According to our findings, in the presence of children, in the presence of other diseases, and in women who smoke, physical health is experienced with less intensity. In fact, PCS was significantly negatively associated with smoking (beta = −2.286; p = 0.006), full-term pregnancy (beta = −2.513; p = 0.003), and comorbidities (beta = −5.035; p < 0.001). These results are similar to the findings from a recent cohort study among 1091 women that reported that currently smoking and comorbidities were factors associated with the decline in the PCS score of the Short Form 36 [66]. Another important finding of the study was the negative relation between PCS and alcohol consumption. There was evidence to indicate a relationship between alcohol consumption and endometriosis risk [67].
With respect to mental health, we found that age, physical activity and a good perception of health care were predictors of higher levels of mental health (age: beta = 0.151; p = 0.012; physical activity: beta = 1.864; p = 0.018; health care satisfaction: beta = 0.435; p < 0.001). Women who smoke and women who reported comorbidities had the lowest level of MCS (beta = −2.345; p = 0.013 and beta = −1.63; p = 0.37 respectively). Our findings are consistent with the narrative review by Capezzuoli et al. which showed how gynecological and systemic comorbidities may negatively affect the quality of life and the global health of women with endometriosis [68]. In addition, several studies indicate a strong relationship between mental health disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, panic, somatoform disorders, etc.) and endometriosis, with a great impact on the mental quality of life of these women [11,69].
This study has several limitations. First of all, it was a convenience sample, the questionnaire was self-completed online and then the selection bias could be met, taking into account that internet access is also related to age; in fact, according to ISTAT data, internet use is limited in women over the age of 65, especially those with a low level of education [70]. Another limitation is the study design (transversal study), that did not allow for the establishment of causal relationships [71]. We do not have information on menopausal women, and this is an important factor to analyze, in addition to information about sexual problems related to endometriosis or the self-management of it [72]. Despite the present limitations, the study aims to contribute to the knowledge of the phenomenon and to raise awareness of women with endometriosis in the difficult period of the pandemic. Further studies are needed to further investigate the long-term issues that result from the pandemic, also considering other aspects that have not been investigated in this study, such as the distinction between menopausal women and non-menopausal women.

5. Conclusions

The COVID pandemic had a negative impact on the QoL of the general population, mostly because of social restrictions, but also because people affected by chronic illnesses—such as endometriosis—experienced this lowering of the QoL to a greater extent because of the worse quality of health care received.
It is known how endometriosis negatively impacts quality of life and social life [73]. The main finding of our study is that the positive perception of quality of healthcare is a significant predictor of a good quality of life, both physically and mentally. The satisfaction with health care was found as a significant predictor of QoL in women with endometriosis, both for physical and mental health, although the study reported a slight influence on mental health and a stronger influence on physical health. This result is very important in maintaining attention on the need to develop specialized pathways to help women with endometriosis and for early diagnosis, especially in the era of the pandemic, in which the worst problems reported by the women of the interviewed sample are related to being on a waiting list.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/ijerph20010625/s1, Quality of care and perception of quality of life in women with endometriosis in the Covid era (Qualità dell’assistenza e percezione della qualità della vita nelle donne con endometriosi in era Covid).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.C., M.M. and S.N.; Formal analysis, V.C. and M.M.; Investigation, V.C. and C.L.; Methodology, V.C., M.M. and S.N.; Software, V.C., M.M. and S.N.; Supervision, V.C.; Writing—original draft, V.C., M.M., C.L., L.F. and S.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy, UNIVAQ-MESVA-FFO 2022-Cofini.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Authorized by the Internal Review Board (IRB) of the University of L’Aquila (Protocol number 26/2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed in this study are not available to outside researchers due to privacy issues.

Acknowledgments

First of all, thanks to the women who participated in the survey. Thanks also to all the private and public groups on social networks that have promoted the research, all the associations for endometriosis and all the public figures who have supported us in raising awareness of participation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11); WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Endometriosis. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/endometriosis (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  3. Nezhat, C.; Agarwal, S.; Lee, D.A.; Tavallaee, M. Can we accurately diagnose endometriosis without diagnostic laparoscopy? J. Turk. Ger. Gynecol. Assoc. 2022, 23, 117–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zondervan, K.T.; Yudkin, P.L.; Vessey, M.P.; Jenkinson, C.; Dawes, M.; Barlow, D.; Kennedy, S. The community prevalence of chronic pelvic pain in women and associated illness behaviour. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2001, 51, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Adamson, G.D.; Kennedy, S.; Hummelshoj, L. Creating Solutions in Endometriosis: Global Collaboration through the World Endometriosis Research Foundation. J. Endometr. 2010, 2, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Márki, G.; Bokor, A.; Rigó, J. Physical pain and emotion regulation as the main predictive factors of health-related quality of life in women living with endometriosis. Hum. Reprod. 2017, 32, 1432–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Gallagher, J.S.; DiVasta, A.D.; Vitonis, A.F.; Sarda, V.; Laufer, M.R.; Missmer, S.A. The Impact of Endometriosis on Quality of Life in Adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 2018, 63, 766–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Rush, G.; Misajon, R.; Hunter, J.A.; Gardner, J.; O’Brien, K.S. The relationship between endometriosis-related pelvic pain and symptom frequency, and subjective wellbeing. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2019, 17, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Warzecha, D.; Szymusik, I.; Wielgos, M.; Pietrzak, B. The Impact of Endometriosis on the Quality of Life and the Incidence of Depression—A Cohort Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nnoaham, K.E.; Hummelshoj, L.; Webster, P.; d’Hooghe, T.; de Cicco Nardone, F.; de Cicco Nardone, C.; Jenkinson, C.; Kennedy, S.H.; Zondervan, K.T.; World Endometriosis Research Foundation Global Study of Women’s Health consortium. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: A multicenter study across ten countries. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 96, 366–373.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. He, G.; Chen, J.; Peng, Z.; Feng, K.; Luo, C.; Zeng, X. A Study on the Correlation Between Quality of Life and Unhealthy Emotion Among Patients With Endometriosis. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 830698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Alonazi, W.B.; Thomas, S.A. Quality of care and quality of life: Convergence or divergence? Health Serv. Insights 2014, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mama, S.T. Advances in the management of endometriosis in the adolescent. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 30, 326–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Agarwal, S.K.; Antunez-Flores, O.; Foster, W.G.; Hermes, A.; Golshan, S.; Soliman, A.M.; Arnold, A.; Luna, R. Real-world characteristics of women with endometriosis-related pain entering a multidisciplinary endometriosis program. BMC Women’s Health 2021, 21, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barra, F.; La Rosa, V.L.; Vitale, S.G.; Commodari, E.; Altieri, M.; Scala, C.; Ferrero, S. Psychological status of infertile patients who had in vitro fertilization treatment interrupted or postponed due to COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022, 43, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chudasama, Y.V.; Gillies, C.L.; Zaccardi, F.; Coles, B.; Davies, M.J.; Seidu, S.; Khunti, K. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2020, 14, 965–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Muselli, M.; Cofini, V.; Desideri, G.; Necozione, S. Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: How may communication strategies influence our behaviours? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 53, 101982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Del Vecchio Blanco, G.; Calabrese, E.; Biancone, L.; Monteleone, G.; Paoluzi, O.A. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the colorectal cancer prevention. Int. J. Colorectal. Dis. 2020, 35, 1951–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Muselli, M.; Cofini, V.; Mammarella, L.; Carmignani, C.; Fabiani, L.; Desideri, G.; Necozione, S. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on emergency services. Ann. Ig. 2022, 34, 248–258. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pietroletti, R.; Gallo, G.; Muselli, M.; Martinisi, G.; Cofini, V. Proctologic Surgery Prioritization After the Lockdown: Development of a Scoring System. Front. Surg. 2022, 8, 798405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Carrara, A.; Pertile, R.; Amabile, D.; Reich, F.; Nava, F.; Moscatelli, P.; Pellecchia, L.; Motter, M.; Ferro, A.; Valent, F.; et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic waves on changes in surgical urgency volumes and severity in the regional hospital network of Trento (Northern Italy): A descriptive epidemiological analysis. Epidemiol. Prev. 2021, 45, 470–476. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mak, I.L.; Wan, E.Y.F.; Wong, T.K.T.; Lee, W.W.J.; Chan, E.W.Y.; Choi, E.P.H.; Chui, C.S.L.; Ip, M.S.M.; Lau, W.C.S.; Lau, K.K.; et al. The Spill-Over Impact of the Novel Coronavirus-19 Pandemic on Medical Care and Disease Outcomes in Non-communicable Diseases: A Narrative Review. Public Health Rev. 2022, 43, 1604121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bramanti, S.M.; Trumello, C.; Lombardi, L.; Babore, A. COVID-19 and chronic disease patients: Perceived stress, worry, and emotional regulation strategies. Rehabil. Psychol. 2021, 66, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ghotbi, T.; Salami, J.; Kalteh, E.A.; Ghelichi-Ghojogh, M. Self-management of patients with chronic diseases during COVID19: A narrative review. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2022, 62, E814–E821. [Google Scholar]
  25. De Mei, B.; Cattaneo, C.; Lega, I.; Sampaolo, L.; Valli, M. Centro Nazionale per la Prevenzione delle Malattie e la Promozione della Salute, Le nuove Sfide Nella Gestione del COVID-19: L’esperienza dei Servizi di Prevenzione. ISS. 2020. Available online: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/sars-cov-2-esperienza-servizi-prevenzione (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  26. Apers, S.; Dancet, E.A.; Aarts, J.W.; Kluivers, K.B.; D’Hooghe, T.M.; Nelen, W.L. The association between experiences with patient-centred care and health-related quality of life in women with endometriosis. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2018, 36, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cofini, V.; Perilli, E.; Moretti, A.; Bianchini, V.; Perazzini, M.; Muselli, M.; Lanzi, S.; Tobia, L.; Fabiani, L.; Necozione, S. E-Learning Satisfaction, Stress, Quality of Life, and Coping: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italian University Students a Year after the COVID-19 Pandemic Began. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cofini, V.; Bianchini, V.; Muselli, M.; Budroni, D.; Tobia, L.; Calò, G.L.; Fabiani, L.; Necozione, S. Quality of Life among Pediatric Neurocognitive, Speech, and Psychomotor Rehabilitation Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study on an Italian Sample. Clin. Pract. 2021, 11, 860–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jones, E.; Mitra, A.; Bhuiyan, A. Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shah, M.; Roggenkamp, M.; Ferrer, L.; Burger, V.; Brassil, K.J. Mental Health and COVID-19: The Psychological Implications of a Pandemic for Nurses. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2021, 25, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Apolone, G.; Cifani, S.; Mosconi, P. Questionario sullo stato di salute SF-36. Traduzione e validazione della versione italiana: Risulttai del progetto IQOLA. Medic 1997, 2, 86–94. [Google Scholar]
  32. Apolone, G.; Mosconi, P. The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: Translation, Validation and Norming. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51, 1025–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Istituto Mario Negri. Qualità della Vita e Stato di Salute: Il Questionario SF-36. 2018. Available online: http://lsi.marionegri.it/qdv/index.php?page=sf36 (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  34. Aprile, V.; Baldissera, S.; D’Argenzio, A.; Lopresti, S.; Mingozzi, O.; Scondotto, S.; Binkin, N.; Giusti, A.; Maggini, M.; Perra, A.; et al. Risultati Nazionali dello Studio QUADRI (QUalità dell’Assistenza alle Persone Diabetiche nelle Regioni Italiane); Istituto Superiore di Sanità: Roma, Italy, 2007.
  35. Lancia, L.; Michetti, M.; Petrucci, C.; Cofini, V. La qualità dell’assistenza sanitaria percepita dalle persone con diabete nella regione Abruzzo [The quality of health care perceived by diabetes patients in the Abruzzo region]. Prof. Inferm. 2008, 61, 74–79. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sergeant, ESG, 2018. Epitools Epidemiological Calculators. Ausvet. Available online: http://epitools.ausvet.com.au (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  37. Yela, D.A.; Quagliato, I.P.; Benetti-Pinto, C.L. Quality of Life in Women with Deep Endometriosis: A Cross-Sectional Study. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2020, 42, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14; StataCorp LP: College Station, TX, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  39. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). Popolazione Residente al 1° Gennaio. 2022. Available online: http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=DCIS_POPRES1 (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  40. Della Corte, L.; Di Filippo, C.; Gabrielli, O.; Reppuccia, S.; La Rosa, V.L.; Ragusa, R.; Fichera, M.; Commodari, E.; Bifulco, G.; Giampaolino, P. The Burden of Endometriosis on Women’s Lifespan: A Narrative Overview on Quality of Life and Psychosocial Wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Graaff, A.A.; D’Hooghe, T.M.; Dunselman, G.A.; Dirksen, C.D.; Hummelshoj, L.; WERF EndoCost Consortium; Simoens, S. The significant effect of endometriosis on physical, mental and social wellbeing: Results from an international cross-sectional survey. Hum. Reprod. 2013, 28, 2677–2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Simoens, S.; Dunselman, G.; Dirksen, C.; Hummelshoj, L.; Bokor, A.; Brandes, I.; Brodszky, V.; Canis, M.; Colombo, G.L.; DeLeire, T.; et al. The burden of endometriosis: Costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres. Hum. Reprod. 2012, 27, 1292–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Denny, E. “I Never Know From One Day to Another How I Will Feel”: Pain and Uncertainty in Women With Endometriosis. Qual. Health Res. 2009, 19, 985–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sepulcri Rde, P.; do Amaral, V.F. Depressive symptoms, anxiety, and quality of life in women with pelvic endometriosis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2009, 142, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ministry of Health. Endometriosi. 2021. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/donna/dettaglioContenutiDonna.jsp?area=Salute%20donna&id=4487&lingua=italiano&menu=patologie (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  46. Ellis, K.; Munro, D.; Clarke, J. Endometriosis Is Undervalued: A Call to Action. Front. Glob. Women’s Health 2022, 3, 902371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Surrey, E.; Soliman, A.M.; Trenz, H.; Blauer-Peterson, C.; Sluis, A. Impact of Endometriosis Diagnostic Delays on Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs. Adv. Ther. 2020, 37, 1087–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Hudelist, G.; Fritzer, N.; Thomas, A.; Niehues, C.; Oppelt, P.; Haas, D.; Tammaa, A.; Salzer, H. Diagnostic delay for endometriosis in Austria and Germany: Causes and possible consequences. Hum. Reprod. 2012, 27, 3412–3416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sims, O.; Gupta, J.; Missmer, S.; Aninye, I. Stigma and Endometriosis: A Brief Overview and Recommendations to Improve Psychosocial Well-Being and Diagnostic Delay. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Becker, C.M.; Bokor, A.; Heikinheimo, O.; Horne, A.; Jansen, F.; Kiesel, L.; King, K.; Kvaskoff, M.; Nap, A.; Petersen, K.; et al. ESHRE Endometriosis Guideline Group. ESHRE guideline: Endometriosis. Hum. Reprod. Open 2022, 2022, hoac009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Vercellini, P.; Viganò, P.; Somigliana, E.; Fedele, L. Endometriosis: Pathogenesis and treatment. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2014, 10, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Facchin, F.; Barbara, G.; Saita, E.; Mosconi, P.; Roberto, A.; Fedele, L.; Vercellini, P. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and mental health: Pelvic pain makes the difference. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2015, 36, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Samy, A.; Taher, A.; Sileem, S.A.; Abdelhakim, A.M.; Fathi, M.; Haggag, H.; Ashour, K.; Ahmed, S.A.; Shareef, M.A.; AlAmodi, A.A.; et al. Medical therapy options for endometriosis related pain, which is better? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2021, 50, 101798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bień, A.; Rzońca, E.; Zarajczyk, M.; Wilkosz, K.; Wdowiak, A.; Iwanowicz-Palus, G. Quality of life in women with endometriosis: A cross-sectional survey. Qual. Life Res. 2020, 29, 2669–2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schwab, R.; Stewen, K.; Ost, L.; Kottmann, T.; Theis, S.; Elger, T.; Schmidt, M.W.; Anic, K.; Kalb, S.R.; Brenner, W.; et al. Predictors of Psychological Distress in Women with Endometriosis during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Helliwell, J.F. How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Econ. Model 2003, 20, 331–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Koninckx, P.R.; Meuleman, C.; Demeyere, S.; Lesaffre, E.; Cornillie, F.J. Suggestive evidence that pelvic endometriosis is a progressive disease, whereas deeply infiltrating endometriosis is associated with pelvic pain. Fertil. Steril. 1991, 55, 759–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Salute della Donna (ONDA). Endometriosi. Available online: https://ondaosservatorio.it/focus/ginecologia/endometriosi/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  59. Osservatorio Nazionale Sulla Salute della Donna (ONDA). Le Disuguaglianze di Salute in Italia. Available online: https://www.osservatoriosullasalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Osservatorio-sulla-salute_Le-disuguaglianze-di-salute_15_02_2018.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  60. National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty (NIHMP). Le Disuguaglianze di Salute. Available online: https://www.inmp.it/ita/Osservatorio-Epidemiologico/Disuguaglianze-di-salute (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  61. As-Sanie, S.; Black, R.; Giudice, L.C.; Valbrun, T.G.; Gupta, J.; Jones, B.; Laufer, M.R.; Milspaw, A.T.; Missmer, S.A.; Norman, A.; et al. Assessing research gaps and unmet needs in endometriosis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 221, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shum, L.K.; Bedaiwy, M.A.; Allaire, C.; Williams, C.; Noga, H.; Albert, A.; Lisonkova, S.; Yong, P.J. Deep Dyspareunia and Sexual Quality of Life in Women With Endometriosis. Sex. Med. 2018, 6, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Gonçalves, A.V.; Barros, N.F.; Bahamondes, L. The Practice of Hatha Yoga for the Treatment of Pain Associated with Endometriosis. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2017, 23, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ricci, E.; Vigano, P.; Cipriani, S.; Chiaffarino, F.; Bianchi, S.; Rebonato, G.; Parazzini, F. Physical activity and endometriosis risk in women with infertility or pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2016, 95, e4957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Tennfjord, M.K.; Gabrielsen, R.; Tellum, T. Effect of physical activity and exercise on endometriosis-associated symptoms: A systematic review. BMC Womens Health 2021, 21, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Solomon, D.H.; Colvin, A.; Lange-Maia, B.S.; Derby, C.; Dugan, S.; Jackson, E.A.; Ruppert, K.; Karvonen-Gutierrez, C.; Santacroce, L.; Strotmeyer, E.S.; et al. Factors Associated With 10-Year Declines in Physical Health and Function Among Women During Midlife. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2142773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Parazzini, F.; Cipriani, S.; Bravi, F.; Pelucchi, C.; Chiaffarino, F.; Ricci, E.; Viganò, P. A metaanalysis on alcohol consumption and risk of endometriosis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013, 209, 106.e1–106.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Capezzuoli, T.; Orlandi, G.; Sorbi, F.; Petraglia, F.; Clemenza, S.; Ponziani, I.; Vannuccini, S. Gynaecologic and Systemic Comorbidities in Patients with Endometriosis: Impact on Quality of Life and Global Health. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 49, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Carbone, M.; Campo, G.; Papaleo, E.; Marazziti, D.; Maremmani, I. The Importance of a Multi-Disciplinary Approach to the Endometriotic Patients: The Relationship between Endometriosis and Psychic Vulnerability. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. Aspetti della vita Quotidiana. Available online: http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?QueryId=23019 (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  71. Wang, X.; Cheng, Z. Cross-Sectional Studies: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations. Chest 2020, 158, S65–S71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Agarwal, S.K.; Foster, W.G.; Groessl, E.J. Rethinking endometriosis care: Applying the chronic care model via a multidisciplinary program for the care of women with endometriosis. Int. J. Women’s Health 2019, 11, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Culley, L.; Law, C.; Hudson, N.; Denny, E.; Mitchell, H.; Baumgarten, M.; Raine-Fenning, N. The social and psychological impact of endometriosis on women’s lives: A critical narrative review. Hum. Reprod. Update 2013, 19, 625–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 00625 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart diagram.
Figure 1. Flow chart diagram.
Ijerph 20 00625 g001
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics: socio-demographic and clinical data (All participants n. 1065).
Table 1. Sample characteristics: socio-demographic and clinical data (All participants n. 1065).
CharacteristicsMean (SD) or N (%)
Age a35 (8)
Residence
South408 (38%)
Center229 (22%)
North428 (40%)
Nationality
Italian1041 (98%)
Foreign24 (2%)
Marital status a
Married/cohabiting629 (59%)
Single436 (41)
Living alone
No950 (89%)
Yes115 (11%)
Education a
High (degree or above)467 (44%)
Low (secondary school)598 (56%)
Employed a
Yes696 (65%)
No369 (35%)
Body Mass Index a23.11 (4.8)
Physical activity a
Yes435 (41%)
No630 (59%)
Smoking b
Tobacco221 (21%)
E-cig60 (5%)
No784 (74%)
Alcohol consumption a
Yes 265 (25%)
No780(75%)
Full-term pregnancies a
Yes304 (29%)
No761 (71)
Time from symptoms to diagnosis (years)
<1203 (19%)
1–4253 (24%)
5–9236 (22%)
≥10367 (35%)
Diagnostic delay (years)7 (3.7)
Hormonal treatments (lifetime perspective) a
Yes677 (64%)
No388 (36%)
Clinical complications related to endometriosis c824 (77%)
Chronic pelvic pain 672 (63.1%)
Dyspareunia716 (67.2%)
Pelvic floor disorders525 (49.3%)
Self-catheterisms38 (3.6%)
Neuropathy/nerve disorders331 (31.1%)
Infertility378 (35.5%)
Hysterectomy108 (10.1%)
Salpingectomy140 (13.2%)
Ovariectomy106 (9.9%)
Intestinal stenosis123 (11.6%)
Intestinal resection157 (14.7%)
Intestinal stoma/urostomy55 (5.2%)
Bladder resection69 (6.5%)
Adhesions 592 (55.6%)
Surgical intervention for endometriosis a
No416 (39%)
Yes649 (61%)
Comorbidities a
No487 (46%)
Yes578 (54%)
a: Factors included in the physical and mental component score (PCS-MCS) regression; b: Factors included in the physical and mental component score (PCS-MCS) regression excluding smoking electonic cigarettes; c: Factors included in the physical and mental component score (PCS-MCS) regression as dichotomic (yes/no).
Table
Table 2. SF36 Scale scores and summary components (All participants n = 1065).
Table 2. SF36 Scale scores and summary components (All participants n = 1065).
SF-36 Scale ScoresMean (SD)
Physical functioning66.65 (27.12)
Role limitations due to physical health39.50 (38.92)
Role limitations due to emotional problems40.56 (41.14)
Pain46.71 (27.92)
General health37.18 (20.77)
Vitality (Energy/fatigue)35.70 (18.40)
Social functioning44.47 (25.61)
Emotional well-being47.88 (19.24)
SF-36 Component ScoresMean (SD)
Physical component summary (PCS) 38.89 (10.55)
Mental component summary (MCS) 34.59 (11.17)
Table
Table 3. Quality health care perception (women who had a medical visit for endometriosis in the last 12 months, n = 889).
Table 3. Quality health care perception (women who had a medical visit for endometriosis in the last 12 months, n = 889).
ItemsN (%) or Mean (SD)/Median (Range)
Opening hours of the structure
Not adequate44 (5%)
Just adequate82 (9.2%)
Adequate520 (58.5%)
Excellent243 (27.3%)
Accessibility of the rooms
Not very accessible14 (1.6%)
Accessibility with some difficulty31 (3.5%)
Fairly accessible353 (39.7%)
Very accessible491 (55.2%)
Cleanliness and agreeability
Not sufficient8 (0.9%)
Sufficient41 (4.6%)
Good303 (34.1%)
Optimum537 (60.4%)
Courtesy and helpfulness
Not sufficient49 (5.5%)
Sufficient81 (9.1%)
Good241 (27.1%)
Optimum518 (58.3%)
Explanations understandable
Never19 (2.2%)
Sometimes151 (17%)
Always468 (52.6%)
Often251 (28.2%)
Being listened to
Never44 (5%)
Sometimes193 (21.7%)
Always258 (29%)
Often394 (44.3%)
Waiting times from booking to the visit
Maximum one month428 (48%)
Between 1 and 6 months357 (40%)
Between 6 and 12 months88 (10%)
Over a year16 (2%)
Waiting time from arrival to visit
Less than 15 min259 (29%)
Between 15 min and 30 min337 (38%)
Between 30 min and an hour169 (19%)
More than an hour124 (14%)
Overall rating of the service offered in the last 12 months
Not sufficient55 (6%)
Sufficient149 (17%)
Good419 (47%)
Optimum266 (30%)
Judgment of the level of coordination between all services and professionals who deal with the disease
Not sufficient195 (22%)
Sufficient207 (23%)
Good305 (34%)
Optimum182 (21%)
Preventive anti-COVID measures
Not sufficient17 (1.9%)
Sufficient74 (8.3%)
Good319 (35.9%)
Optimum479 (53.9%)
Global satisfaction index a23.11 (4.8)/24 (5–34)
a: Factors included in the physical and mental component score (PCS-MCS) regression.
Table
Table 4. Predictors of high level of PCS (n = 875 *).
Table 4. Predictors of high level of PCS (n = 875 *).
Univariate RegressionMultivariable Regression
BetaS.E.p-ValueBetaS.E.p-Value
Age−0.1860.044<0.001−0.0940.0530.073
Occupational status: employed3.4490.721<0.0012.3010.7500.002
Educational level: high5.1800.681<0.0013.2060.717<0.001
BMI−0.2650.072<0.001−0.0700.0730.343
Physical activity: yes3.6470.698<0.0012.0300.6870.003
Smoke: yes−3.1210.854<0.001−2.2860.8280.006
Alcol: yes3.3580.793<0.0012.0380.7790.009
Full term pregnancy: yes−4.4650.754<0.001−2.5130.8450.003
Surgery: yes−1.5630.7130.029−0.7410.7280.309
Therapy: yes1.1320.7290.1210.1350.7370.854
comorbidities: yes−6.6800.662<0.001−5.0350.682<0.001
Complications: yes0.3740.8330.6530.1400.8100.863
Satisfaction index0.4010.668<0.0010.3820.061<0.001
* Women were pregnant at the moment of the survey were excluded from this analysis; the beta are the regression coefficients.
Table
Table 5. Predictors of high level of MCS (n = 875 *).
Table 5. Predictors of high level of MCS (n = 875 *).
Univariate RegressionMultivariable Regression
BetaS.E.p-ValueBetaS.E.p-Value
Age0.2780.046<0.0010.1510.0600.013
Occupational status: employed2.9290.754<0.0011.6990.8610.049
Educational level: high−1.2720.7340.083−1.4510.8230.078
BMI0.1120.0750.137−0.0270.0840.746
Physical activity: yes2.3620.736<0.0011.8670.7890.018
Smoke: yes−2.2050.8910.013−2.2980.9490.016
Alcohol: yes−0.1690.8370.840−0.4440.8940.620
Full term pregnancy: yes2.9150.798<0.0010.7050.9700.467
Surgery: yes2.8440.740<0.0010.7910.8360.344
Therapy: yes−2.5410.7570.001−1.5300.8460.071
Comorbidities: yes−1.2270.7300.093−1.6450.7820.036
Complications: yes−0.2080.8700.811−0.1090.9300.906
Satisfaction index0.4800.070<0.0010.4380.070<0.001
* Women who were pregnant at the moment of the survey were excluded from this analysis; the beta are the regression coefficients.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cofini, V.; Muselli, M.; Lolli, C.; Fabiani, L.; Necozione, S. Does Quality of Care (QoC) Perception Influence the Quality of Life (QoL) in Women with Endometriosis? Results from an Italian Nationwide Survey during Covid Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 625. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20010625

AMA Style

Cofini V, Muselli M, Lolli C, Fabiani L, Necozione S. Does Quality of Care (QoC) Perception Influence the Quality of Life (QoL) in Women with Endometriosis? Results from an Italian Nationwide Survey during Covid Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):625. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20010625

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cofini, Vincenza, Mario Muselli, Chiara Lolli, Leila Fabiani, and Stefano Necozione. 2023. "Does Quality of Care (QoC) Perception Influence the Quality of Life (QoL) in Women with Endometriosis? Results from an Italian Nationwide Survey during Covid Pandemic" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 625. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20010625

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop