A phenomenological study:"lived-experience after ectopic pregnancy
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Impact of “lived experience” on recovery from laparoscopic salpingectomy compared to medical management of ectopic pregnancy. A Phenomenological study.
IRAS ID
179972
Contact name
Anna-Maria Brown
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Surrey
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 0 months, 28 days
Research summary
This study compares the “lived experience” after surgical vs medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube. Currently there is little understanding of the “lived experience” following treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, in particular if there are any differences between medical and surgical treatment. All women successfully treated with ectopic pregnancy with either surgical or medical treatment would be eligible. The study will be conducted at one site, Newham University Hospital. The study will take about 12 months. The study aims to recruit ten women with surgical and ten with medical treatment will be recruited. The “lived experience” will be assessed with an interview asking questions around how women are recovering following treatment using a concept called phenomenology. Surgical treatment is key-hole surgery to remove the damaged fallopian tube. Surgical treatment is quick with good recovery back to normal activity within days of treatment. Surgery is minimally invasive with the key-hole method but carries the usual risks of the surgery and anaesthesia in addition to the loss of one fallopian tube. Medical treatment is a single intramuscular injection of Methotrexate and requires follow-up with repeat blood tests for several weeks, with the uncertainty of possible non-response requiring surgical treatment. Successful medical treatment will result in preservation of the fallopian tube, although patency and functionality will not be known without further testing, creating a further element of uncertainty. If a difference in “lived experience” is demonstrated then findings from this study will hopefully help with developing support systems to cater for specific needs.
REC name
London - Stanmore Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/LO/2043
Date of REC Opinion
3 Dec 2015
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion