Self-efficacy and social support enable women to protect their pelvic floor health: A nonrandomized controlled trial in rural Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carrying heavy loads increases the risk of pelvic organ disorders, particularly in low-income countries. Low self-efficacy hampers adoption of pelvic-floor-protective behaviors. The enabling hypothesis suggests that social support may strengthen women’s behavioral self-efficacy. A three-arm parallel non-randomized controlled trial with 300 women and their social partners experimentally examined whether self-efficacy and social support can enable women’s pelvic-floor-protective behaviors in rural Nepal. Three villages received (1) self-efficacy (2) self-efficacy and social support promotion, or (3) information only control. The co-primary outcomes were reduced weight carried and using protective lifting techniques at 2-month follow-up. Self-efficacy promotion increased the use of protective lifting techniques 9% more than information only ( d = 0.28). Weight was reduced by 3 kg more when additionally promoting social support compared to self-efficacy alone ( d = 0.39). Self-efficacy and social support promotion enable women to better protect their pelvic floor health and may complement educational approaches to health behavior change in low-resource populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".