Women’s experiences with vaginal pessary use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TITLE: Women's experiences with vaginal pessary use. AIM: This paper is a report of a study of the lived experiences of women using vaginal pessaries for the treatment of urinary incontinence (UI) and/or pelvic organ prolapse. BACKGROUND: The use of a vaginal pessary offers a non-surgical treatment option to provide physical support to the bladder and internal organs. As the literature asserts, a woman's choice to use a pessary is very individual and involves not only physical, but also psychological and emotional considerations. METHOD: Narrative inquiry was used to conduct face-to-face semi-structured interviews in 2007 with 11 postmenopausal women who accessed services from a Urogynecology Clinic in Eastern Canada. FINDINGS: The women's stories revealed that living with a pessary is a life-changing experience and an ongoing learning process. The women's comfort level and confidence in caring for the device figured prominently in their experiences. Psychosocial support provided by the clinic nurses also played a primary role in the women's experiences. CONCLUSION: Women and healthcare professionals need to be aware of the personal isolation and embarrassment, and social and cultural implications that urinary incontinence may cause as well as the subjective experiences of using a pessary. With appropriate support, vaginal pessaries can provide women with the freedom to lead active, engaged and social lives.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".