(025) DEVELOPING AND TESTING AN ONLINE PRIMARY CARE TOOLKIT FOR COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF VULVODYNIA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Vulvodynia is a chronic vulvar pain condition that affects 8-10% of women and people with vulvas. Despite its prevalence, healthcare providers (HCPs) often lack awareness, knowledge, and confidence in managing vulvodynia. This knowledge gap can lead to diagnostic delays, misdiagnoses, and reflex referrals to specialists. Moreover, research shows that patients feel invalidated in healthcare settings and perceive that their HCPs’ lack of vulvodynia awareness negatively impacts their care. Thus, there is a need for educational resources about vulvodynia that can be applied in healthcare settings. Specifically, community-based primary care providers could greatly benefit from vulvodynia resources because they are often a point of entry into the healthcare system. Objective To develop and test a new, online toolkit tailored to supporting community-based primary care providers with the assessment, diagnosis, and management of vulvodynia. In this pilot study, we sought to evaluate the adoption, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the vulvodynia toolkit in a pilot sample of community-based family physicians. Methods A working group of HCPs (family physicians, gynecologists, physiotherapist, psychologists) and patient partners with vulvodynia expertise developed the toolkit. The toolkit was designed in an online, modular format that could be integrated into short healthcare visits. A sample of 19 family physicians completed online surveys before and after piloting the toolkit in their community practice for 6 months. Adoption was measured in the post-toolkit survey by assessing the frequency and timing of toolkit use during the pilot period. Acceptability was measured in the post-toolkit survey by assessing physicians’ satisfaction with the toolkit content and quality. Preliminary efficacy was assessed by comparing physicians’ self-reported level of confidence with diagnosing, treating, and supporting patients with vulvodynia before and after the pilot period. Results Adoption. During the pilot period, physicians used the toolkit in advance of patient appointments (52.6%), during patient appointments (5.3%), or used a combination of both timepoints (42.1%). Over the 6-month pilot period, physicians used the toolkit an average of 2.61 times (SD = 1.50) in advance of seeing patients and 1.63 times (SD = 2.19) during patient appointments. Acceptability. Most physicians reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the toolkit overall (79.0%) and that it contained the right amount of information (68.4%). On average, the physicians rated their likelihood of recommending the toolkit to a colleague as 8/10 (SD = 1.75). Preliminary efficacy. Using repeated-measures MANOVAs, we found significant pre-toolkit to post-toolkit increases in physician’s confidence for diagnosing vulvodynia, p = .003, ηp 2 = .59, treating vulvodynia, p < .001, ηp2 = .72, and supporting patients with vulvodynia, p < .001, ηp2 = .73. Conclusions In this pilot study, we developed and tested an online vulvodynia toolkit tailored to educating community-based primary care providers. The toolkit demonstrated high acceptability and preliminary efficacy amongst a pilot group of family physicians, with large effect sizes. The results of this study exemplify the value of tailored education for improving physicians’ confidence with managing vulvodynia in community practice and lay the foundation for upscaling this tool to a wider population of HCPs. Disclosure No.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».