2014 consensus statement on improving pelvic floor muscle training adherence: International Continence Society 2011 State‐of‐the‐Science Seminar
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it