Exploring the Education and Practice Experiences of Pelvic Health Physiotherapists in Canada: A Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Pelvic health physiotherapy involves sensitive practices including internal assessment and treatment of the pelvic floor. Pelvic health physiotherapy education is not standardized in Canada, which may lead to diverse experiences. The purpose of this study was to explore the education and practice experiences of pelvic health physiotherapists in Canada. Method: This descriptive qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with physiotherapists providing pelvic health services in Canada and a reflexive thematic analysis approach. Results: Based on interviews with 20 pelvic health physiotherapists (19 women and one man) from six provinces, we identified four themes: the right fit, managing vulnerability, the holistic nature of pelvic health physiotherapy, and entering pelvic health physiotherapy requires thoughtful consideration. Participants described pelvic health physiotherapy as the right fit for themselves personally and professionally. The clinical practice involved managing their patients’ and their own vulnerability and taking a holistic and biopsychosocial approach to treating patients with pelvic health conditions. Participants described the importance of mentorship and a supportive clinical environment when entering the field. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of pelvic health physiotherapists’ experiences, which can help to guide the advancement of pelvic health physiotherapy education and practice supports in Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".