Pelvic Floor Health Education: Can a Workshop Enhance Patient Counseling During Pregnancy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pelvic floor disorders commonly affect women's quality of life. Their etiology is multifactorial, yet pregnancy and vaginal delivery (VD) are major inciting risk factors. Our objectives were to assess pelvic floor health information given by maternity providers to their pregnant patients, to create a pelvic floor health information workshop, and to determine its impact on women's preferences for mode of delivery. METHODS: This descriptive study recruited primiparous women with a singleton gestation at St Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, Canada. Participants received a 2-hour workshop describing pelvic floor disorders and pregnancy, modes of delivery, as well as strategies for maintaining pelvic floor health and preventing disease. Women completed questionnaires assessing baseline knowledge and level of comfort with different modes of delivery before and after the workshop. RESULTS: Forty participants completed the workshop. Seventy percent had an obstetrician, 20% had a midwife, and 10% had a family physician. Five percent of the participants reported receiving information regarding pelvic organ prolapse as well as urinary and fecal incontinence. The workshop did not influence women's preferred mode of delivery, including VD (P = 1.00), forceps-assisted VD (P = 0.48), vacuum-assisted VD (P = 0.68), postlabor cesarean delivery (P = 0.32), and elective cesarean delivery (P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Current antenatal care is lacking in the area of pelvic floor health education. Patient counseling can be enhanced via a standard workshop. Concerns about negatively influencing women's preferences for mode of delivery are unwarranted, as the pelvic floor health workshop, given during pregnancy, did not significantly change participants' preferences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".