The management of chronic pelvic pain—due to diverse aetiologies and mechanisms—is often challenging or even impossible for single healthcare providers. We propose that these problems are handled better through inter- and multidisciplinary cooperation (even in the first line), resulting in superior pain relief and an improved patient experience.

Our single centre, retrospective investigation examined the effectiveness of a closely-knit multidisciplinary team for treating chronic pelvic pain compared to unidisciplinary management. We interviewed 300 patients—treated by our pelvic pain team between 2020 and 2025—to determine which approach proved to be more efficient in easing their chronic symptoms and achieving higher rate of satisfaction: the team-based model or the traditional path of separate providers. 
- 1st set of questions addressed the duration of symptoms, the number and specialty of consultants previously visited, and the total expenditure on pre-PPTF examinations and treatments.
- the 2nd section assessed the factors most influential to patient satisfaction, including consultation length, perceived empathy, and the clinical outcomes of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.
- 3rd section evaluated participant perceptions of the PPTF, specifically its operational framework, perceived utility, and any identified shortcomings. The study was approved by the Regional, Institutional Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of our university.

According to the responses to our questions about examinations and treatments prior to visiting the our specialists (who get together biweekly to discuss cases), there was generally not enough time to discuss complaints within the framework of non-multidisciplinary care (73%) and they were dissatisfied with the time available. Two-thirds of them did not encounter adequate empathy in unidisciplinary setting and 83% did not receive a satisfactory explanation for the cause of their pain. Several had doubts about the established diagnosis (46%) too. But whether they agreed or not, about half of them (46%) did not receive useful advice to relieve pain and if they did, it generally did not alleviate the complaints (87%).

We asked the same questions about the work of our team: 77% felt they had enough time nd 75% felt they had experienced an adequate level of understanding and compassion from us. 75% sayed that we had shed light on the mechanism of the pain (+62%), but only 30 agreed with the given diagnosis (only 62% - but this is still twice as many patients as after previous examinations). 69% received some kind of treatment recommendation (+17%), which was largely accepted (75%), but only 42% were satisfied with the effect (+31% difference). The answers to each question showed a significant - and in all cases significant (p=0.005) - difference in favor of multidisciplinary care.

When asked how we could improve the quality of care provided by the working group: 79% would like it to be faster and easier to request an appointment, 80% would like the waiting time to be shorter and to have someone to ask for advice even in urgent cases. 75% would like communication to be more accessible, and 62% would like to see different examinations taking place in one physical space (e.g. in one ward). And although 79% of patients said they had enough time to discuss their complaints, 81% would still like to spend more time with the working group members.

We propose that chronic pelvic pain be assessed at the first-line level by a specialized, multidisciplinary team. This is necessary not only because the development and persistence of pelvic pain are driven by a complex interaction of biopsychosocial factors, but also because dedicated task forces provide the high-quality, integrated care essential for optimizing patient satisfaction.

Our findings should serve as a catalyst for a paradigm shift in pelvic pain management.