Corrigendum

This article refers to:

Mindfulness-based psychological intervention for coping with pain in endometriosis

Kold, M., Hansen T. G. B., Vedsted-Hansen H., & Forman A (2012). Mindfulness-based psychological intervention for coping with pain in endometriosis. Nordic Psychology, 64, 2–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2012.693727

The authors would like to apologize for an error in the results of this paper.

During a follow-up study, our data were scrutinized once again. In the primary analysis, raw data were recoded according to the manual before inserted in the SF-36 statistical program. However, the SF-36 program performs this recoding automatically, meaning that it has been done twice and an improvement of all eight scales of the SF-36 was overlooked. The intervention was thereby considered less effective than it actually appears at proper analysis.

The authors would like to assure readers that this affects only results from the SF-36 questionnaire. The EHP-30 data are correct.

The results of our revised analysis are clarified in the following text.

Results

Prior to intervention, participants scored below national average on all SF-36 scales (Table 1). The scales for role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, and role-emotional were particularly low.

There was a significant improvement on the five scales bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, and role-emotional from pre- to post-intervention, and all 8 SF-36 scales improved significantly from pre-intervention to 6 and 12 months follow-up. Moreover, repeated measures ANOVA analysis showed significant improvements on all scales.

Table 1. SF-36 comparison data, descriptive statistics, and tests for post-intervention change.

Table

	DK standard, women 16 +		T1 Pre intervention		T2 Post intervention		T1-T2	T3 6 mo follow-up		T1-T3	T4 12 mo follow-up		T1-T4	Repeated measures ANOVA
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	p	M	SD	P	M	SD	p	df	F	p
Physical functioning	86.40	21.23	69.50	14.80	77.00	18.14	0.152	83.50	12.03	0.015	82.50	12.96	0.024	3,27	3.86	0.02
Role – physical	80.26	33.56	15.00	21.08	37.50	39.53	0.054	47.50	41.58	0.028	50.00	39.09	0.007	3,27	3.95	0.019
Bodily pain	76.29	24.30	31.30	14.39	54.70	15.69	0.002	53.90	14.42	< 0.001	57.80	12.52	< 0.001	3,27	12.75	< 0.001
General health	75.61	20.93	36.10	14.08	48.60	19.73	0.024	^a50.78	16.56	0.002	55.40	22.25	0.004	3,24	4.73	0.01
Vitality	67.43	20.55	27.50	17.83	52.00	23.59	0.003	46.50	17.00	< 0.001	49.00	20.11	0.003	3,27	7.05	0.001
Social functioning	90.17	18.57	47.50	24.86	77.50	17.48	0.004	73.75	17.13	0.002	70.00	26.48	<0.001	3,27	8.75	< 0.001
Role – emotional	84.47	29.18	23.33	35.31	73.33	34.43	0.009	63.33	36.68	0.018	50.00	42.31	0.104	3,27	5.17	0.006
Mental health	79.98	16.03	59.20	22.69	76.80	10.96	0.069	76.40	11.69	0.016	69.60	20.76	0.038	3,27	3.30	0.035

Notes: For all means, higher values reflect improved quality of life scales. N = 10, except ^aN = 9.

Discussion

The findings from the general health and well-being SF-36 questionnaire are consistent with our parallel results from the endometriosis-specific questionnaire EHP-30 and show significant improvements in all eight SF-36 scales from pre-intervention to follow-up. This agreement was expected since mutual correlations between the two forms were found during development of EHP-30 (Jones et al., 2001). The intervention successfully improved physical, psychological, and social aspects of the participant’s problems.

In conclusion, our results suggest that use of mindfulness techniques in patients with chronic pain secondary to endometriosis is feasible and may afford positive effects on quality of life. Randomized controlled studies on this approach are motivated.