A Sisterhood of Women: The Process of Co‐Creating Recommendations for Improved Pessary Self‐Management Support
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIMS: This work aimed to explore barriers to pessary self-management and co-create strategies to address these. DESIGN: Participatory Action Research. METHODS: In October 2024, eight pessary-using women living in the United Kingdom participated in cooperative inquiry, discussion and co-creation of strategies in two virtual workshops. RESULTS: Pessary using women who participated in this research identified challenges affecting willingness to self-manage a pessary and proposed solutions to address these and better support women. Pessary practitioners should assess physical capabilities, consider softer, more malleable pessaries, and explore the possibility of a pessary applicator. Peer support was seen as empowering, enabling self-advocacy and improved care; therefore, establishing peer networks was prioritised. Major barriers included difficulty navigating services and limited access to a full range of pessaries, leading some women to buy devices online without medical oversight, creating a two-tier system based on ability to pay. The group called for improved, standardised pessary care, and for self-management to be reframed to avoid women feeling 'fobbed off' through better follow-up, positive language, and compassionate care. CONCLUSIONS: The group identified strategies to address barriers to pessary self-management which require further exploration. Pessary practitioners have a responsibility to listen to these voices and take steps to improve care for women in the future. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: To support women's willingness to self-manage their pessary, pessary practitioners should consider and support women to overcome physical and emotional barriers; improve information provision; maximise social support; boost women's perceived self-efficacy; reframe pessary self-management and ensure robust, accessible follow-up is in place. This will ensure pessary-using women are supported to make an informed decision about pessary self-management. This research offers pessary practitioners insight into barriers women perceive to pessary self-management and guidance as to how women can be supported to self-manage their pessary. IMPACT: Only 21% of women are willing to self-manage their pessary. Therefore, this research aimed to co-create strategies to better support women to self-manage their pessary and overcome barriers to willingness. Women reported individual, societal and service factors which affect willingness to self-manage a pessary. These research findings should be translated into clinical practice and care delivery for pessary using women in both a community and hospital setting. REPORTING METHOD: COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and members of the public were involved in research prioritization, study design, data analysis, interpretation of findings and dissemination. STUDY REGISTRATION: Study not registered.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,053 | 0,076 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,020 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».