Pelvic Floor Health Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To design a primary care clinical tool (Pelvic Floor Health Index [PFHI]) to screen for postpartum pelvic floor disorders, as well as complete its psychometric validation. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two tertiary care obstetric centres in Vancouver, BC. PARTICIPANTS: Primiparous women older than 19 years of age who were in the immediate postpartum period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The PFHI was administered to 74 primiparous women immediately postpartum and at 2, 4, and 6 months postpartum. For evaluation of convergent and divergent construct validity, participants also completed several validated questionnaires, including the Female Sexual Functioning Index, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Fifteen women repeated their 6-month questionnaires 2 weeks later in order to determine test-retest reliability. Responsiveness was assessed by measuring the PFHI score change from baseline to 6 months postpartum. RESULTS: Pelvic Floor Health Index score was inversely correlated with subscale scores on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory at all time points. There were moderate correlations between PFHI score and the Female Sexual Functioning Index and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores at several time points. There were weak correlations with postpartum depression scores. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.92). The PFHI mean total score significantly improved by 1.8 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.6) at 6 months postpartum. CONCLUSION: The PFHI is a 10-item, newly validated, and psychometrically robust questionnaire that can be administered to patients in the postpartum period to screen for pelvic floor dysfunction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.005 |
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".