Pelvic floor muscle training program for Egyptian women with neglected urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urinary incontinence (UI) is an extremely common complaint in every part of the world. It causes a great deal of distress and embarrassment, as well as significant costs, to both individuals and societies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) program on women complaining of urinary incontinence. Quasi experimental design was utilized. The study was conducted in Talkha Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Center, Dakahlia governorate from May 2013 to April 2014. The study subjects included 140 women visiting Talkha MCH Center. Three tools were used for data collection. Woman's health assessment sheet was developed by the researcher, the second tool was quality of life as measured by incontinence impact questionnaire, and the third tool was the follow up sheet. Study results showed a statistically significant positive effect of PFMT on UI and the women's quality of life. The study recommended providing a guideline to develop clinical teaching and in- service education programs for all maternity nurses and nursing educators regarding the UI and PFMT as a preventive as well as treatment modality for UI. Furthermore, community awareness about the positive effect of practicing PFME among incontinent women is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".