Pelvic organ prolapse: a patient-centred perspective on what women encounter seeking diagnosis and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify how pelvic organ prolapse (POP) impacts the lives of women, to understand the barriers and frustrations that women encounter in seeking diagnosis and intervention and to determine priorities consumers consider most important for future research and government action. Between May and November 2006, the National Association For Continence (NAFC) distributed a survey via the association’s quarterly public newsletter, Quality Care®. Surveys were completed and returned by 6.8% of the female readership who self-reported symptoms of POP. A total of 97 women agreed to participate in an in-depth telephone interview. Telephone contact was successfully made and interviews were completed by a single interviewer with one-third, or 33, of the 97 women. Respondents reported issues that limit quality of life including urinary and faecal incontinence, inability to enjoy sport and dissatisfaction with conservative management and surgical treatment. Respondents also reported difficulty in discussing symptoms with their doctors and a lack of recognition of the severity of POP by primary care physicians. In addition, adequate public health education and promotion on the subject is lacking, according to respondents. There is an identified need for health professionals to recognise the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment of POP. In addition, there is a need to develop educational material for both primary care health professionals and consumers in order to encourage more open dialogue between providers and their patients on the subject. By identifying barriers and frustrations encountered in seeking diagnosis and intervention, the research findings also indicate the need for developing an instrument to assess consumer attempts to access diagnosis and intervention for POP.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".