Acceptability of multimodal pelvic floor physical therapy to treat dyspareunia after gynecological malignancies: a qualitative study of women’s views and experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Multimodal pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) is recommended after gynecological malignancies to treat dyspareunia. However, data to strongly support its implementation in the cancer care continuum are lacking. The aim of this study was to explore the views and experiences of gynecological cancer survivors with dyspareunia regarding the acceptability of multimodal PFPT. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted with the participants (n = 28) of a study investigating a 12-week multimodal PFPT treatment. Individual semi-structured telephone interviews served to collect qualitative data pertaining to women's views and experiences of the treatment they received. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis using the interpretative description framework. RESULTS: Our cohort described the appropriateness of the treatment in terms of modalities, physical therapist, care delivery, and intensity (Theme 1). While the intensity was reported as demanding by a few, all participants stressed that it was relevant to see significant improvements (Theme 2). In addition to the treatment characteristics and women's beliefs and attitudes, noticing the treatment effects motivated their participation (Theme 2). Women expressed being highly satisfied with the treatment based on their positive experiences and the balance between their efforts and the results they obtained (Theme 3). As a result, they all recommended this treatment (Theme 3). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the acceptability of multimodal PFPT in the context of gynecological malignancies. This treatment was found acceptable and can be offered to gynecological cancer survivors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 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".