4.5 Article

Factors affecting satisfaction with treatment in European women with chronic constipation: An internet survey

期刊

UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL
卷 1, 期 5, 页码 375-384

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2050640613494200

关键词

Bloating; bulk-forming laxatives; chronic constipation treatment; dissatisfaction; incomplete evacuation; laxatives; osmotic laxatives; patient-reported outcome; satisfaction with chronic constipation treatment; stimulant laxatives

资金

  1. Shire-Movetis, Turnhout, Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Data on factors affecting treatment satisfaction in European women with chronic constipation are limited. Objective: To assess factors associated with treatment satisfaction among European women with chronic constipation. Methods: A 2011-2012 internet survey was conducted in men and women from 12 European countries. Respondents analysed were female with self-reported chronic constipation (>= 1 symptoms for >= 6 months of lumpy/hard stools, feeling of incomplete evacuation, and pain during defecation, as well as <3 bowel movements/week). For laxative users, satisfaction with treatment, factors affecting satisfaction, and interactions with healthcare professionals were collected. Results and conclusions: In total, 4805/50,319 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria (female with chronic constipation). Of the laxative users (1575/4805), 57% (n = 896) were satisfied with their treatment, while 26% were neutral, and 17% dissatisfied. Dissatisfied respondents visited their GP less frequently in the past 12 months, were more likely to obtain over-the-counter laxatives, and took a dose higher than recommended more frequently than those satisfied. Respondents were most satisfied with ease of use of treatment and least satisfied with relief from bloating. Newer treatments aimed at alleviating symptoms, particularly bloating, are required for respondents neutral or dissatisfied with their current treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据