Group physiotherapy compared to individual physiotherapy to treat urinary incontinence in aging women: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI), one of the most prevalent health concerns confronting women aged over 60 years, affects up to 55% of older community-dwelling women-20-25% with severe symptoms. Clinical practice guidelines recommend individualized pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) as a first-line treatment for stress or mixed UI in women, although lack of human and financial resources limits delivery of this first-line treatment. Preliminary data suggest that group-based treatments may provide the answer. To date, no adequately powered trials have evaluated the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of group compared to individual PFMT for UI in older women. Given demographic projections, high prevalence of UI in older women, costly barriers, and group PFMT promising results, there is a clear need to rigorously compare the short- and long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group vs individual PFMT. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial, conducted in two facilities (Montreal and Sherbrooke) in the Canadian province of Quebec. Participants include 364 ambulatory, community-dwelling women, aged 60 years and older, with stress or mixed UI. Randomly assigned participants will follow a 12-week PFMT, either in one-on-one sessions or as part of a group, under the supervision of a physiotherapist. Blinded assessments at baseline, immediately post intervention, and at one year will include the seven-day bladder diary, the 24-h pad test, symptoms and quality of life questionnaires, adherence and self-efficacy questionnaire, pelvic floor muscle function, and cost assessments. Primary analysis will test our main hypothesis that group-based treatment is not inferior to individualized treatment with respect to the primary outcome: relative (%) reduction in the number of leakages. DISCUSSION: Should this study find that a group-based approach is not less effective than individual PFMT, and more cost-effective, this trial will impact positively continence-care accessibility and warrant a change in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02039830 . Registered on 12 December 2013; Study protocol version 2; 21 November 2013.
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 | 0.029 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.011 |
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".