Responsiveness of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire in a Swedish sample: an observational study

K Wickstrom, Wickstrom K, J Spira, Spira J, Edelstam G, G Edelstam
Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology · 2017 · doi:10.12891/ceog3599.2017 · PMID:29949284
other OA: bronze public-domain-us
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-26 ⓘ

This prospective observational study evaluated the responsiveness of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire in 42 Swedish patients, finding that scores significantly reflected pain improvement after perturbation treatment.

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

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-26 · read from full text ⓘ

This observational study evaluated the responsiveness of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire in a Swedish cohort of forty-two patients undergoing perturbation treatment. Researchers compared changes in EHP-30 scores against self-reported pain intensity changes, utilizing effect sizes and statistical tests to assess responsiveness across different patient groups. The results demonstrated significant score improvements for patients reporting clinical improvement, with large effect sizes on most core scales, while stable patients showed no significant changes. These findings confirm that the EHP-30 is a valid and applicable tool for measuring quality of life changes in this specific population. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — specifically validating a health-related quality of life instrument used to monitor symptom progression and treatment response in patients with the condition.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the responsiveness of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire in a Swedish sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with endometriosis were included in a prospective observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The changes on the EHP-30 questionnaire after pertubation treatment were compared with the patients' self-estimated change in pain intensity. The responsiveness to change was evaluated with effect sizes and significance of change (paired t-test). The changes in scores between those who improved / not improved were compared with independent t-test. RESULTS: The changes in the scores were significant for all dimensions on the core questionnaire (p = 0.04-0.0002) for improved patients in contrast to the patients in the stable group where there were no significant changes in any dimension (p = 0.16-0.63). The effect sizes were large (> 0.8) on all core scales except for self-image (0.51) for the improved patients and small on all scales in the non-improved (stable) group (- 0.17-0.35). There were significant differences between the improved and the stable group considering change in most of the core EHP-30 scores. CONCLUSIONS: The EHP-30 is responsive to improvement on all core scales and is acceptable, understandable, and applicable in this Swedish sample.
Full text 2,169 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to evaluate the responsiveness of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire in a Swedish sample. Materials and Methods: Forty-two patients with endometriosis were included in a prospective observational study. Main outcome measures: The changes on the EHP-30 questionnaire after pertubation treatment were compared with the patients’ self-estimated change in pain intensity. The responsiveness to change was evaluated with effect sizes and significance of change (paired t-test). The changes in scores between those who improved / not improved were compared with independent t-test. Results: The changes in the scores were significant for all dimensions on the core questionnaire (p = 0.04-0.0002) for improved patients in contrast to the patients in the stable group where there were no significant changes in any dimension (p = 0.16-0.63). The effect sizes were large (> 0.8) on all core scales except for self-image (0.51) for the improved patients and small on all scales in the non-improved (stable) group (- 0.17-0.35). There were significant differences between the improved and the stable group considering change in most of the core EHP-30 scores. Conclusions: The EHP-30 is responsive to improvement on all core scales and is acceptable, understandable, and applicable in this Swedish sample.

Keywords

- Endometriosis - Pain - Quality of life - EHP-30 - Responsiveness

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Outcome instruments

EHP-30

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Quality of Life Adult Anesthetics, Local Anesthetics, Local Female Humans Lidocaine Lidocaine Middle Aged Prospective Studies Reproducibility of Results Surveys and Questionnaires Sweden

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-07T06:10:45.703000+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:20:37.704673+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-16T02:00:00.672124+00:00
License: public-domain-us · commercial use OK · attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine