A conceptual model for managing sexual pain with somatocognitive therapy in women with provoked vestibulodynia and implications for physiotherapy practice.

Somatocognitive therapy is a multimodal physiotherapy treatment developed in the early 2000s to alleviate the burden of chronic pelvic pain. In recent years, somatocognitive therapy has been further developed to treat women with provoked vestibulodynia. This prevalent gynecological pain condition is a subgroup of chronic pelvic pain and the most common form of vulvodynia. Provoked vestibulodynia is a neglected multifactorial pain condition of unknown cause, adversely affecting women's sexual life, relation to their partners and their psychological health. Pain is located at the vulvar vestibule and is provoked by touch or pressure such as sexual intercourse. In the management of sexual pain, somatocognitive therapy combines bodily exploration, pain education, cognitive coping strategies and structured homework to improve sexual function and reduce pain. To support these processes, developing a sound therapeutic alliance with the patient is essential. The aim of this article is to provide a conceptual model for managing provoked vestibulodynia with somatocognitive therapy, including a theoretical rational for this treatment. We base our conceptual model on the biopsychosocial model, i.e., considering the complex interplay of biomedical, emotional/cognitive, psychosexual and interpersonal factors in provoked vestibulodynia management. In addition, implications for practice and a detailed description of somatocognitive therapy for provoked vestibulodynia will be provided, to allow replication in clinical practice and in clinical trials.

Feasibility and acceptability of somatocognitive therapy in the management of women with provoked localized vestibulodynia-ProLoVe feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) is a prevalent chronic pain condition especially among young women. Pain is localized to the vulvar vestibule and is provoked by touch or pressure, such as penetrative intercourse. PVD can have profound consequences, adversely affecting a woman's sexual life, relation to her partner, and her psychological health. There is an urgent need for well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to identify the most effective interventions for this neglected women's health condition. AIMS: The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of undertaking a full-scale RCT of somatocognitive therapy (SCT), a multimodal physiotherapy intervention, for women with PVD. The secondary aim is to evaluate the implementation and acceptability of SCT and its potential treatment effectiveness in PVD. In the full-scale RCT, SCT will be compared to standard PVD treatment. METHODS: A multimethod feasibility study with a single-arm before-after trial and qualitative interviews. Ten women with PVD, aged 18-33 were recruited from the Vulva Clinic at Oslo University Hospital. The intervention took place at Oslo Metropolitan University. Participants were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and the 8-month follow-up with the tampon test and self-report questionnaires. The main feasibility outcomes were evaluation of recruitment rate, adherence to assessment tools, and follow-up rate. The participants' experiences with the primary outcome and the intervention were explored with semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Ten out of 18 eligible patients were recruited over 11 weeks. None were lost to follow-up. Adherence to self-report questionnaires was excellent. Adherence to tampon tests and to the reporting of treatments was good, whereas adherence to the 14-day diary was poor. No adverse events were reported. The tampon test was suboptimal as a primary outcome. SCT was found to be an acceptable treatment, based on Global Perceived Effect scores and the participants' experiences. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that it is feasible to deliver a full-scale RCT of the SCT intervention for women with PVD. Some changes are suggested to optimize the protocol, such as increasing recruitment sites, change of primary outcome measures, and adding a booster session. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04208204 . Retrospectively registered on December 23, 2019.

The Tampon Test as a Primary Outcome Measure in Provoked Vestibulodynia: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) is characterized by severe pain, often induced by penetrative sex. This may lead to women abstaining from sexual intercourse, hence the recording of pain intensity levels in PVD research is often challenging. The standardized tampon test was designed as an alternative outcome measure to sexual intercourse pain and has frequently been used in clinical studies. AIM: The aim of this mixed methods study is to evaluate the tampon test as a primary outcome measure for an upcoming randomized clinical trial for women with PVD. METHODS: An explanatory sequential design was applied, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. In phase one, pain intensity levels were evaluated with the tampon test amongst 10 women, aged 18-33, with PVD. The test was repeated on day 1, 7 and 14. Pain intensity was rated on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), (0-10), 10 being worst possible pain. In phase two, the participants' experiences with the test were explored with semi-structured interviews using a descriptive and inductive qualitative design. All participants were recruited from the Vulva Clinic, Oslo University Hospital, Norway. OUTCOMES: The tampon test data and interviews were brought together to see how the interviews could refine and help to explain the quantitative findings. RESULTS: The tampon test data demonstrated large intra- and inter-individual variability. Median tampon pain intensity was 4.5 (min=1.7; max=10; Q1=2.5; Q3=6). Many experienced the test as an inadequate representation of pain during intercourse as it was less painful, different in nature and conducted in an entirely different context. Four participants had a mean score of four or lower on the NRS, whilst concurrently reporting high levels of pain during sexual intercourse. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The findings indicate that the tampon test may underestimate severity of pain among some women with PVD. Participants with low pain scores would be excluded from studies where the tampon test is part of the trial eligibility criteria, even though severe pain was experienced during sexual intercourse. Large intra-individual variability in pain scores also reduces the test's ability to register clinical meaningful changes and hence necessitates repeated measurements per assessment time point. CONCLUSION: Although the tampon test has many advantages, this study indicates several potential problems with the application of the test as a primary outcome measure in PVD. In our opinion the test is most useful as a secondary outcome, preferably undertaken repeatedly in order to increase precision of the pain estimation. Kaarbø MB, Danielsen KG, Haugstad GK, et al. The Tampon Test as a Primary Outcome Measure in Provoked Vestibulodynia: A Mixed Methods Study. J Sex Med 2021;18:1083-1091.

The Standardised Mensendieck Test as a tool for evaluation of movement quality in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nonspecific chronic low back pain is a multifactorial biopsychosocial health problem where accurate assessments of pain, function and movement are vital. There are few reliable and valid assessment tools evaluating movement quality, hence the aim was to investigate nonspecific chronic low back pain patients' movement patterns with the Standardised Mensendieck Test. METHODS: Twenty patients (mean age=41, SD=9.02) with nonspecific chronic low back pain were examined with the Standardised Mensendieck Test whilst being videotaped and compared with 20 healthy controls. A physiotherapist, blinded to participant's group belonging, scored Standardised Mensendieck Test videos according to the standardised manual. Associations between movement quality, fear of movement and re(injury) i.e. kinesiophobia and pain intensity were also investigated. RESULTS: Patients scored significantly poorer than the controls in all 5 Standardised Mensendieck Test domains (p<0.001). The biggest difference was observed with regard to movement pattern domain. In women we also found a difference in the respiration pattern domain. CONCLUSIONS: The Standardised Mensendieck Test was able to detect significant differences in quality of movement between patients and healthy controls. These results indicate that the Standardised Mensendieck Test may be a valuable examination tool in assessment and treatment of nonspecific chronic low back pain patients. Further, longitudinal studies should investigate whether poor movement and respiration patterns are important factors in nonspecific chronic low back pain, e.g. as predictors and/or mediators of therapeutic effects.