Background: Despite common use of proprioceptive retraining interventions in people with chronic, idiopathic neck pain, evidence that proprioceptive dysfunction exists in this population is lacking. Determining whether proprioceptive dysfunction exists in people with chronic neck pain has clear implications for treatment prescription. Purpose: The aim of this study was to synthesize and critically appraise all evidence evaluating proprioceptive dysfunction in people with chronic, idiopathic neck pain by completing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, EMBASE, Academic Search Premier, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched. Study Selection: All published studies that compared neck proprioception (joint position sense) between a chronic, idiopathic neck pain sample and asymptomatic controls were included. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant population and proprioception data and assessed methodological quality using a modified Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. Data Synthesis: Thirteen studies were included in the present review. Meta-analysis on 10 studies demonstrated that people with chronic neck pain perform significantly worse on head-to-neutral repositioning tests, with a moderate standardized mean difference of 0.44 (95% confidence interval=0.25, 0.63). Two studies evaluated head repositioning using trunk movement (no active head movement thus hypothesized to remove vestibular input) and showed conflicting results. Three studies evaluated complex or postural repositioning tests; postural repositioning was no different between groups, and complex movement tests were impaired only in participants with chronic neck pain if error was continuously evaluated throughout the movement. Limitations: A paucity of studies evaluating complex or postural repositioning tests does not permit any solid conclusions about them. Conclusions: People with chronic, idiopathic neck pain are worse than asymptomatic controls at head-to-neutral repositioning tests.

Endometriosis has a significant negative impact on the lives of women, and current medical treatments often do not give sufficient pain relief or have intolerable side effects for many women. The majority of women with primary dysmenorrhea use self-management strategies (including self-care techniques or lifestyle choices) to help manage period related symptoms, but little is known about self-management in women with endometriosis. The aim of this survey was to determine the prevalence of use, safety, and self-rated effectiveness of common forms of self-management. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed via social media using endometriosis support and advocacy groups in Australia between October and December 2017. Women were eligible to answer the survey if they were 18–45, lived in Australia, and had a confirmed diagnosis of endometriosis. Survey questions covered the types of self-management used, improvements in symptoms or reduction in medication, and safety. Four hundred and eighty-four valid responses were received. Self-management strategies, consisting of self-care or lifestyle choices, were very common (76%) amongst women with endometriosis. The most common forms used were heat (70%), rest (68%), and meditation or breathing exercises (47%). Cannabis, heat, hemp/CBD oil, and dietary changes were the most highly rated in terms of self-reported effectiveness in pain reduction (with mean effectiveness of 7.6, 6.52, 6.33, and 6.39, respectively, on a 10-point scale). Physical interventions such as yoga/Pilates, stretching, and exercise were rated as being less effective. Adverse events were common, especially with using alcohol (53.8%) and exercise (34.2%). Self-management was very commonly used by women with endometriosis and form an important part of self-management. Women using cannabis reported the highest self-rated effectiveness. Women with endometriosis have unique needs compared to women with primary dysmenorrhea, and therefore any self-management strategies, especially those that are physical in nature, need to be considered in light of the potential for ‘flare ups’.

We aimed to develop a questionnaire that assesses the impact of pelvic pain on women, regardless of diagnosis, that has high utility, sound psychometric performance, easy scoring, and high reliability. Two studies, with 3 separate cohorts, were undertaken. Both studies were completed online. Studies included women with self-reported pelvic pain. Women were eligible to participate regardless of whether their pelvic pain was undiagnosed, self-diagnosed, or diagnosed by a clinician. Study 1 used a 3-round “patient-as-expert” Delphi technique. These rounds defined the 10 aspects of life with the self-reported greatest impact on the lives of women with pelvic pain, which formed the questionnaire. Study 2 used Rasch analysis to assess the psychometric properties of the resultant 10-item questionnaire. To assess its reliability, a subgroup completed the questionnaire 3 times over a 3-week period. In study 1, 443 women with pelvic pain participated. The resultant 10-item questionnaire consisted of 8 Likert questions and 2 supplemental, nonscored questions. In study 2, 1203 women with pelvic pain completed the questionnaire. Rasch analysis showed that the questionnaire targeted the pelvic pain population well, had appropriate Likert categories, constituted a unidimensional scale, and showed internal consistency. Twenty-seven women with pelvic pain completed the reliability trial. Test–retest reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.91, P < 0.001). The resultant Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire assesses the life impact of pelvic pain. It uses patient-generated language, is easily administered and scored, has very strong psychometric properties, and it is suitable for research and clinical settings across primary, secondary, and tertiary care.