MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409148109 · doi:10.2196/68242

Innovating Care for Postmenopausal Women Using a Digital Approach for Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions: Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4409148109 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana P. Pereira, Dora Janela, Anabela C. Areias, Maria Molinos, Xin Tong, Virgílio Bento, Vijay Yanamadala, Jennesa Atherton, Fernando Dias Correia, Fabíola Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyPelvic floorPelvic floor dysfunctionProspective cohort studyPelvic Floor MusclePelvic painFecal incontinenceUrinary incontinenceNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The menopause transition is a significant life milestone that impacts quality of life and work performance. Among menopause-related conditions, pelvic floor dysfunctions (PFDs) affect ∼40%-50% of postmenopausal women, including urinary or fecal incontinence, genito-pelvic pain, and pelvic organ prolapse. While pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the primary treatment, access barriers leave many untreated, advocating for new care delivery models. Objective: This study aims to assess the outcomes of a digital pelvic program, combining PFMT and education, in postmenopausal women with PFDs. Methods: This prospective, longitudinal study evaluated engagement, safety, and clinical outcomes of a remote digital pelvic program among postmenopausal women (n=3051) with PFDs. Education and real-time biofeedback PFMT sessions were delivered through a mobile app. The intervention was asynchronously monitored and tailored by a physical therapist specializing in pelvic health. Clinical measures assessed pelvic floor symptoms and their impact on daily life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7, Urinary Impact Questionnaire-short form 7, Colorectal-Anal Impact Questionnaire-short form 7, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire-short form 7), mental health, and work productivity and activity impairment. Structural equation modeling and minimal clinically important change response rates were used for analysis. Results: The digital pelvic program had a high completion rate of 77.6% (2367/3051), as well as a high engagement and satisfaction level (8.6 out of 10). The safety of the intervention was supported by the low number of adverse events reported (21/3051, 0.69%). The overall impact of pelvic floor symptoms in participants' daily lives decreased significantly (-19.55 points, 95% CI -22.22 to -16.88; P<.001; response rate of 59.5%, 95% CI 54.9%-63.9%), regardless of condition. Notably, nonwork-related activities and productivity impairment were reduced by around half at the intervention-end (-18.09, 95% CI -19.99 to -16.20 and -15.08, 95% CI -17.52 to -12.64, respectively; P<.001). Mental health also improved, with 76.1% (95% CI 60.7%-84.9%; unadjusted: 97/149, 65.1%) and 54.1% (95% CI 39%-68.5%; unadjusted: 70/155, 45.2%) of participants with moderate to severe symptomatology achieving the minimal clinically important change for anxiety and depression, respectively. Recovery was generally not influenced by the higher baseline symptoms' burden in individuals with younger age, high BMI, social deprivation, and residence in urban areas, except for pelvic health symptoms where lower BMI levels (P=.02) and higher social deprivation (P=.04) were associated with a steeper recovery. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and positive clinical outcomes of a fully remote digital pelvic program to significantly improve PFD symptoms, mental health, and work productivity in postmenopausal women while enhancing equitable access to personalized interventions that empower women to manage their condition and improve their quality of life.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicPelvic floor disorders treatments→French-language works237,207→