Endometriosis management seems to be influenced by outcome-independent biomedical, pharmacological, and technological developments. The propensity towards doing more affects several aspects of care, sometimes translating into proposals that are not based on sound epidemiological principles and robust evidence. Different stakeholders share the interest for doing more testing and using novel and costly drugs or devices in patients with endometriosis. Although some women may benefit from such an approach, the majority do not, and some may be harmed. Moreover, an uncontrolled increase in expenditures for endometriosis management without demonstrated and proportional health benefits would waste the finite resources of national health care services and would risk cost-related non-adherence. Cost-effectiveness analyses should be systematically pre-planned in future trials on endometriosis, and the concept of “value” of medical interventions should guide investigators and health care policymakers. Reducing low-value care, financial toxicity, and the burden of treatment is respectful not only of endometriosis patients, but also of the entire society. Whenever possible, long-term therapeutic strategies should be tailored to each woman's needs, and high-value tests and treatments should be chosen based on her priorities and preferences. Moreover, listening to patients, understanding their concerns, avoiding disease labelling, explaining plainly what is known and what is unknown, and giving constant reassurance and encouragement may be exceedingly important for the successful management of endometriosis and may change the patient's perception of her clinical condition. Physician empathy has no untoward effects, does not cause harms, and may determine whether a woman successfully copes or desperately struggles with her disease during reproductive life.
- Burden of treatment
- Comparative cost-effectiveness research
- Medical treatment
- Value of care