A Qualitative Study of Women’s Values and Decision-making Surrounding Lefort Colpocleisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LeFort colpocleisis for uterovaginal prolapse can be appealing to elderly non-sexually active patients given the durability and low risk, particularly when the alternative procedure is more invasive and includes a hysterectomy. We used qualitative methods to explore women’s decision-making and feelings after this procedure. We interviewed ten women after a LeFort colpocleisis (with or without mid-urethral sling) for uterovaginal prolapse. We conducted semi-structured interviews that were recorded and transcribed and then analyzed using grounded theory. The main themes were: the process of decision-making about whether to have an obliterative procedure, adequacy of preoperative counseling, and comparison against an alternative, more invasive surgical procedure with a hysterectomy. We also used the Decision Regret Scale and the Satisfaction with Decision Scale for Pelvic Floor Disorders. Women made the decision to pursue LeFort colpocleisis mainly by themselves. They felt positive about the ability to control their body and their life through their own decision. None of the women regretted the procedure on the basis of the inability to have penetrative intercourse and did not feel it affected their sexual function in a negative way. Women felt adequately counseled regarding other options and the surgical procedure. Many patients wished they had pursued surgery earlier because they were very satisfied with the results. Women who underwent LeFort colpocleisis were very happy with their decision. They primarily made the decision to have surgery autonomously. None of them regretted having an obliterative procedure for pelvic organ prolapse for reasons of sexual function.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".