Page 130 - Diagnostic delay of endometriosis

by patients as compared to the professionals. Differences in rating between the subgroups of professionals as analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis were seen for 12 interventions. Detailed results of the subgroup analysis are provided in Appendix B. Two interventions were selected based on the results of the subgroup analysis: “Increase awareness by education about menstruation/ endometriosis at secondary school” fulfilled all three selection criteria in patients and the subgroup other professionals, the intervention “Develop joint guideline for GPs and gynaecologists concerning endometriosis” fulfilled all three criteria in the subgroup general practitioners. Five additional interventions were suggested by panel members, of which two were submitted to the expert panel in the second round and three were not adopted.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics patients
Patients (n=25) Age (y)
Educational level*
Low Average High
Time since diagnosis (y)
Diagnostic delay (y)
Reason for referral to a gynaecologist
Subfertility
Pain
Subfertility and pain Other
Not applicable
36.4 (6.8)
1 16 8
4.4 (3.7) 12 (7.8)
Number of women 6
10
4
4 1
Data are given in mean (standard deviation) unless stated otherwise.
* Information concerning educational level is given as absolute number of participants for each category
Delphi round two
In the second Delphi round, 64 out of 81 (79.0%) members of the expert panel started the online questionnaire. The response rates were 92.3% for patients and 72.7% for professionals (Figure 3). Eight participants (four patients and four professionals) started the questionnaire, but did not finish it completely. Data analysis resulted in the selection of seven interventions and the rejection of five interventions (Table 3). Three of the selected interventions were from the domain “patient and professional awareness” and four were from the
128 | Chapter 7