Social support for women with chronic pelvic pain: what is helpful from whom?

Ruth Warwick, Stephen Joseph, Christine Cordle, Polly Ashworth
In: Psychology & Health · 2004 · vol. 19(1) , pp. 117–134 · doi:10.1080/08870440310001613482 · W2057450498
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 7 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This study explored helpful and unhelpful social support for women with chronic pelvic pain, identifying preferred support types from different providers and themes of pain, ideal support, and support shortfalls.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Eight women with Chronic Pelvic Pain (CPP) were asked, by means of semi-structured interview, what had been helpful and unhelpful in terms of social support from their partners, families, friends, acquaintances, doctors, nurses and other women with CPP. Firstly, thematic analysis employing a pre-defined social support category system revealed that particular forms of tangible support were preferred from specific support providers but emotional and informational support was appreciated from the whole support network. Secondly, interpretative phenomenological analysis revealed three major additional themes: ‘Pain and Suffering’ described the trauma suffered by these patients and the anger and anxiety surrounding their experience; ‘Ideal Social Support’ revealed a picture of desired support consisting of enduring emotional and practical support which did not undermine individual autonomy; ‘Shortfalls in Social Support’ had subsidiary themes entitled ‘Lack of empathy’ and ‘Lack of engagement’. These themes were described and discussed in relation to each other, extant research and their clinical implications.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

chronic_pelvic_pain

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (35)

Cited by (7)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-04T06:29:23.997191+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK