Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women is a debilitating condition with symptoms that affect both medical and psychological systems, yet for those with idiopathic CPP (i.e., those without a known physiologic cause), no consensus for intervention exists.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to identify the effectiveness of current biomedical, psychosocial, and integrative interventions for idiopathic CPP (ICPP).
METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycInfo, Web of Science) were systematically searched with multiple keywords for publications from 2008-2022. Articles were coded for sample characteristics, research design, type of intervention, and intervention outcomes.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies met criteria. The majority of the interventions (14 studies) were biomedical, either invasive (e.g., injections), or non-invasive (e.g., medications). Five studies evaluated integrative interventions that combined biomedical and psychosocial components (e.g., a multimodal pain treatment center). Invasive biomedical interventions were better at relieving short-term pain and non-invasive biomedical interventions were superior for long-term pain; integrated interventions reduced both short-term and long-term pain. Integrative interventions also improved mental health, sexual health, and QOL.
CONCLUSIONS: Although most interventions for ICPP have been biomedical, integrative interventions showed greater outcome effectiveness, suggesting a focus on integrative interventions in the future.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to identify the effectiveness of current biomedical, psychosocial, and integrative interventions for idiopathic CPP (ICPP).
METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycInfo, Web of Science) were systematically searched with multiple keywords for publications from 2008-2022. Articles were coded for sample characteristics, research design, type of intervention, and intervention outcomes.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies met criteria. The majority of the interventions (14 studies) were biomedical, either invasive (e.g., injections), or non-invasive (e.g., medications). Five studies evaluated integrative interventions that combined biomedical and psychosocial components (e.g., a multimodal pain treatment center). Invasive biomedical interventions were better at relieving short-term pain and non-invasive biomedical interventions were superior for long-term pain; integrated interventions reduced both short-term and long-term pain. Integrative interventions also improved mental health, sexual health, and QOL.
CONCLUSIONS: Although most interventions for ICPP have been biomedical, integrative interventions showed greater outcome effectiveness, suggesting a focus on integrative interventions in the future.
摘要：
背景：女性的慢性盆腔疼痛（CPP）是一种使人衰弱的疾病，其症状会影响医疗和心理系统，然而，对于患有特发性CPP的人(即，那些没有已知生理原因的)，不存在干预共识。
目的：进行了系统评价，以确定当前生物医学的有效性，社会心理,特发性CPP（ICPP）的综合干预措施。
方法：五个数据库(PubMed，CINAHL,科克伦,PsycInfo,WebofScience）从2008-2022年的出版物中使用多个关键字进行了系统搜索。文章被编码为样本特征，研究设计,干预类型,和干预结果。
结果：19项研究符合标准。大多数干预措施（14项研究）是生物医学，要么是侵入性的(例如，注射),或非侵入性(例如，药物）。五项研究评估了结合生物医学和社会心理成分的综合干预措施(例如，多模式疼痛治疗中心)。有创生物医学干预在缓解短期疼痛方面效果更好，而非侵入性生物医学干预在缓解长期疼痛方面效果更好；综合干预措施减少了短期和长期疼痛。综合干预措施也改善了心理健康，性健康,和QOL。
结论：尽管ICPP的大多数干预措施都是生物医学的，综合干预措施显示出更高的结果有效性，建议未来将重点放在综合干预上。
目的：进行了系统评价，以确定当前生物医学的有效性，社会心理,特发性CPP（ICPP）的综合干预措施。
方法：五个数据库(PubMed，CINAHL,科克伦,PsycInfo,WebofScience）从2008-2022年的出版物中使用多个关键字进行了系统搜索。文章被编码为样本特征，研究设计,干预类型,和干预结果。
结果：19项研究符合标准。大多数干预措施（14项研究）是生物医学，要么是侵入性的(例如，注射),或非侵入性(例如，药物）。五项研究评估了结合生物医学和社会心理成分的综合干预措施(例如，多模式疼痛治疗中心)。有创生物医学干预在缓解短期疼痛方面效果更好，而非侵入性生物医学干预在缓解长期疼痛方面效果更好；综合干预措施减少了短期和长期疼痛。综合干预措施也改善了心理健康，性健康,和QOL。
结论：尽管ICPP的大多数干预措施都是生物医学的，综合干预措施显示出更高的结果有效性，建议未来将重点放在综合干预上。
