Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Coelho, Suelene Albuquerque
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Brito, Luiz Gustavo O., Araújo, Camila Carvalho de, Aguiar, Luiza Borges, Haddad, Jorge M., Giraldo, Paulo C., Juliato, Cássia R. T.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Clinics
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/162046
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries (VPs) as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed during two annual urogynecology and general obstetrics and gynecology meetings in 2017 (Sa˜o Paulo, SP, Brazil). A 19-item deidentified questionnaire regarding experiences and practices in prescribing VPs for POP patients was distributed among gynecologists. Our primary outcome was the frequency of prescribing VPs as a conservative treatment for POP. The reasons for prescribing or not prescribing VPs were also investigated. Univariate and multivariate analyses with crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were performed for variables associated with the prescription of pessaries. RESULTS: Three hundred forty completed surveys were analyzed. Half of the respondents (53.53%) were between 30-49 years old; most of them were female (73.53%), were from the Southeast Region (64.12%), were trained in obstetrics and gynecology (80.24%) or urogynecology (61.18%) and worked in private offices (63.42%). More than one-third (36.48%) attended four or more POP cases/week, and 97.65% (n=332) had heard or knew about VPs for POP; however, only 47.06% (n=160) prescribed or offered this treatment to patients. According to the multivariate analysis, physicians aged 18-35 years (OR=1.97[1.00-3.91]; p=0.04), those who participated in a previous urogynecology fellowship (OR=2.34[1.34-4.09]; po0.01), those with relatively high volumes of POP cases (4 or +) (OR=2.23[1.21-4.47]; p=0.01) and those with PhD degrees (OR=2.75[1.01-7.54]; p=0.05) prescribed more pessaries. CONCLUSIONS: Most gynecologists did not prescribe VPs. Younger physician age, participation in a previous urogynecology fellowship, a PhD degree, and a relatively high volume of POP cases were associated with increased VP prescription rates.
id USP-19_ca3aa0b3dd42acf6b8fd8fa181f7ee2e
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/162046
network_acronym_str USP-19
network_name_str Clinics
repository_id_str
spelling Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapseSurveyPessaryPelvic Organ ProlapseGynecologistsPracticeKnowledgeOBJECTIVE: To identify the factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries (VPs) as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed during two annual urogynecology and general obstetrics and gynecology meetings in 2017 (Sa˜o Paulo, SP, Brazil). A 19-item deidentified questionnaire regarding experiences and practices in prescribing VPs for POP patients was distributed among gynecologists. Our primary outcome was the frequency of prescribing VPs as a conservative treatment for POP. The reasons for prescribing or not prescribing VPs were also investigated. Univariate and multivariate analyses with crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were performed for variables associated with the prescription of pessaries. RESULTS: Three hundred forty completed surveys were analyzed. Half of the respondents (53.53%) were between 30-49 years old; most of them were female (73.53%), were from the Southeast Region (64.12%), were trained in obstetrics and gynecology (80.24%) or urogynecology (61.18%) and worked in private offices (63.42%). More than one-third (36.48%) attended four or more POP cases/week, and 97.65% (n=332) had heard or knew about VPs for POP; however, only 47.06% (n=160) prescribed or offered this treatment to patients. According to the multivariate analysis, physicians aged 18-35 years (OR=1.97[1.00-3.91]; p=0.04), those who participated in a previous urogynecology fellowship (OR=2.34[1.34-4.09]; po0.01), those with relatively high volumes of POP cases (4 or +) (OR=2.23[1.21-4.47]; p=0.01) and those with PhD degrees (OR=2.75[1.01-7.54]; p=0.05) prescribed more pessaries. CONCLUSIONS: Most gynecologists did not prescribe VPs. Younger physician age, participation in a previous urogynecology fellowship, a PhD degree, and a relatively high volume of POP cases were associated with increased VP prescription rates.Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2019-05-24info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/xmlhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/16204610.6061/clinics/2019/e934Clinics; Vol. 74 (2019); e934Clinics; v. 74 (2019); e934Clinics; Vol. 74 (2019); e9341980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/162046/155935https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/162046/155936Coelho, Suelene AlbuquerqueBrito, Luiz Gustavo O.Araújo, Camila Carvalho deAguiar, Luiza BorgesHaddad, Jorge M.Giraldo, Paulo C.Juliato, Cássia R. T.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2019-09-09T13:44:31Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/162046Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2019-09-09T13:44:31Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
title Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
spellingShingle Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
Coelho, Suelene Albuquerque
Survey
Pessary
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Gynecologists
Practice
Knowledge
title_short Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
title_full Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
title_fullStr Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
title_full_unstemmed Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
title_sort Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
author Coelho, Suelene Albuquerque
author_facet Coelho, Suelene Albuquerque
Brito, Luiz Gustavo O.
Araújo, Camila Carvalho de
Aguiar, Luiza Borges
Haddad, Jorge M.
Giraldo, Paulo C.
Juliato, Cássia R. T.
author_role author
author2 Brito, Luiz Gustavo O.
Araújo, Camila Carvalho de
Aguiar, Luiza Borges
Haddad, Jorge M.
Giraldo, Paulo C.
Juliato, Cássia R. T.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Coelho, Suelene Albuquerque
Brito, Luiz Gustavo O.
Araújo, Camila Carvalho de
Aguiar, Luiza Borges
Haddad, Jorge M.
Giraldo, Paulo C.
Juliato, Cássia R. T.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Survey
Pessary
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Gynecologists
Practice
Knowledge
topic Survey
Pessary
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Gynecologists
Practice
Knowledge
description OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries (VPs) as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed during two annual urogynecology and general obstetrics and gynecology meetings in 2017 (Sa˜o Paulo, SP, Brazil). A 19-item deidentified questionnaire regarding experiences and practices in prescribing VPs for POP patients was distributed among gynecologists. Our primary outcome was the frequency of prescribing VPs as a conservative treatment for POP. The reasons for prescribing or not prescribing VPs were also investigated. Univariate and multivariate analyses with crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were performed for variables associated with the prescription of pessaries. RESULTS: Three hundred forty completed surveys were analyzed. Half of the respondents (53.53%) were between 30-49 years old; most of them were female (73.53%), were from the Southeast Region (64.12%), were trained in obstetrics and gynecology (80.24%) or urogynecology (61.18%) and worked in private offices (63.42%). More than one-third (36.48%) attended four or more POP cases/week, and 97.65% (n=332) had heard or knew about VPs for POP; however, only 47.06% (n=160) prescribed or offered this treatment to patients. According to the multivariate analysis, physicians aged 18-35 years (OR=1.97[1.00-3.91]; p=0.04), those who participated in a previous urogynecology fellowship (OR=2.34[1.34-4.09]; po0.01), those with relatively high volumes of POP cases (4 or +) (OR=2.23[1.21-4.47]; p=0.01) and those with PhD degrees (OR=2.75[1.01-7.54]; p=0.05) prescribed more pessaries. CONCLUSIONS: Most gynecologists did not prescribe VPs. Younger physician age, participation in a previous urogynecology fellowship, a PhD degree, and a relatively high volume of POP cases were associated with increased VP prescription rates.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-05-24
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/162046
10.6061/clinics/2019/e934
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/162046
identifier_str_mv 10.6061/clinics/2019/e934
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/162046/155935
https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/162046/155936
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/xml
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Clinics; Vol. 74 (2019); e934
Clinics; v. 74 (2019); e934
Clinics; Vol. 74 (2019); e934
1980-5322
1807-5932
reponame:Clinics
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Clinics
collection Clinics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br
_version_ 1800222764566577152