MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1947027860 · doi:10.1002/nau.22796

2014 consensus statement on improving pelvic floor muscle training adherence: International Continence Society 2011 State‐of‐the‐Science Seminar

2015· review· en· W1947027860 on OpenAlexaff
Chantale Dumoulin, Jean Hay‐Smith, Helena Frawley, Doreen McClurg, Dianne Alewijnse, Kari Bø, Kathryn L. Burgio, Shu‐Yueh Chen, Pauline Chiarelli, Sarah Dean, Suzanne Hagen, Julia Herbert, Aishath Mahfooza, Frances S Mair, Diane Stark, Marijke Van Kampen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicinePhysical therapyMedical educationFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To summarize the findings and "expert-panel" consensus of the State-of-the-Science Seminar on pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) adherence held prior to the 41st International Continence Society scientific meeting, Glasgow, 2011. METHODS: Summaries of research and theory about PFMT adherence (based on a comprehensive literature search) were presented by subject experts at the 2011 Seminar to generate discussion and guidance for clinical practice and future research. Supplemental research, post-seminar, resulted in, three review papers summarizing: (1) relevant behavioral theories, (2) adherence measurement, determinants and effectiveness of PFMT adherence interventions, and (3) patients' PFMT experiences. A fourth, reported findings from an online survey of health professionals and the public. RESULTS: Few high-quality studies were found. Paper I summarizes 12 behavioral frameworks relevant to theoretical development of PFMT adherence interventions and strategies. Findings in Paper II suggest both PFMT self-efficacy and intention-to-adhere predict PFMT adherence. Paper III identified six potential adherence modifiers worthy of further investigation. Paper IV found patient-related factors were the biggest adherence barrier to PFMT adherence. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of high-quality studies, the conclusions were informed by expert opinion. Adherence is central to short- and longer-term PFMT effect. More attention and explicit reporting is needed regarding: (1) applying health behavior theory in PFMT program planning; (2) identifying adherence determinants; (3) developing and implementing interventions targeting known adherence determinants; (4) using patient-centred approaches to evaluating adherence barriers and facilitators; (5) measuring adherence, including refining and testing instruments; and (6) testing the association between adherence and PFMT outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0100.008
Research integrity0.0160.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations149
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurourology and UrodynamicsSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207