MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408534353 · doi:10.3138/ptc-2023-0072

Changing Self-Perceptions and Self-Management of Urinary Incontinence with Pelvic Floor Physiotherapy and Social Support: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

2025· article· en· W4408534353 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sarah Fraser, Kenneth Southall, Mélanie Morin, Lauriane Forest, Chantale Dumoulin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsUrinary incontinenceSelf-managementQualitative researchPhysical therapyPelvic floorPerceptionMedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationUrologyComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore how social support during a pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) programme, performed in a group or individually, influences the perceptions of older women with urinary incontinence (UI) regarding their condition and self-management. Method: This qualitative study was conducted with a subset of participants ( n = 15), who had completed a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) on PFMT for UI. Incontinent older women participated in individual semi-structured interviews about their self-perceptions, self-management, and social support. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed and content analysis was conducted. Results: Four inter-related categories emerged describing how social support positively influenced UI self-perceptions and self-management. These four categories were: (1) point of entry, (2) safe space, (3) concealment to disclosure, and (4) change in perspective. Conclusions: Social support within a PFMT programme helps women with UI improve their UI self-perception and self-management. The PFMT programme itself can also improve seeking of social supports for women with UI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207