Pelvic‐floor‐muscle‐training adherence “modifiers”: A review of primary qualitative studies—<i>2011 ICS State‐of‐the‐Science Seminar research paper III of IV</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This review aims to locate and summarize the findings of qualitative studies exploring the experience of and adherence to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) to recommend future directions for practice and research. METHODS: Primary qualitative studies were identified through a conventional subject search of electronic databases, reference-list checking, and expert contact. A core eligibility criterion was the inclusion of verbatim quotes from participants about PFMT experiences. Details of study aims, methods, and participants were extracted and tabulated. Data were inductively grouped into categories describing "modifiers" of adherence (verified by a second author) and systematically displayed with supporting illustrative quotes. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (14 study reports) were included; eight recruited only or predominantly women with urinary incontinence, three recruited postnatal women, and two included women with pelvic organ prolapse. The quality of methodological reporting varied. Six "modifiers" of adherence were described: knowledge; physical skill; feelings about PFMT; cognitive analysis, planning, and attention; prioritization; and service provision. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals' experience substantial difficulties with capability (particularly knowledge and skills), motivation (especially associated with the considerable cognitive demands of PFMT), and opportunity (as external factors generate competing priorities) when adopting and maintaining a PFMT program. Expert consensus was that judicious selection and deliberate application of appropriate behavior change strategies directed to the "modifiers" of adherence identified in the review may improve PFMT outcomes. Future research is needed to explore whether the review findings are congruent with the PFMT experiences of antenatal women, men, and adults with fecal incontinence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.096 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".