Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery in Canada: A Survey of Obstetrician-Gynecologists and Urologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the current status of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) in Canada, including level of training, practice patterns, barriers to practice and opinions among obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and urologists. METHODS: Electronic surveys were distributed to 737 OB/GYNs through the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and to 489 urologists through the Canadian Urological Association. RESULTS: Complete responses were collected from 301 (41%) OB/GYNs and 39 (8%) urologists. Of the OB/GYN respondents, 57% were generalists (GEN), and 22% completed FPMRS fellowship training (FPMRS-GYN). OB/GYN GENs were less likely than FPMRS-GYNs to report comfort with pelvic organ prolapse quantification assessment, urodynamic testing, cystoscopy, treatment of mesh complications, and management of overactive bladder. Urologists were less likely than FPMRS-GYNs to report comfort completing a pelvic organ prolapse quantification assessment, fitting pessaries, and treating mesh complications but more likely to report comfort managing overactive bladder. FPMRS-GYNs were more likely than other providers to report high volumes (>20 cases in the past year) of vaginal hysterectomy, as well as incontinence and prolapse procedures. OB/GYN GENs and urologists frequently cited lack of formal training in residency as a barrier to performing FPMRS procedures, whereas FPMRS-GYNs reported a lack of operating room facilities and support personnel. Overall, 76% of the respondents were of the opinion that FPMRS should be a credentialed Canadian subspecialty (92% FPMRS-GYN, 69% OB/GYN GEN, 59% urologists). CONCLUSIONS: OB/GYN GENs reported low case volumes and cited inadequate training in residency as a barrier to surgically managing pelvic floor disorders. Most respondents felt that FPMRS should be a credentialed subspecialty.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".