Women’s perceptions regarding access to pelvic health physiotherapy: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose Pelvic floor dysfunctions (PDFs) are highly prevalent in adult women. Although pelvic health physiotherapy (PHP) has been found to provide evidence-based interventions to women presenting these conditions, access to such services may be limited. The objective of this study was to explore women’s perceptions and experiences regarding access to pelvic health physiotherapy (PHP). Methods This study was a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews. An interview guide was used to interview women having experienced PFD, who had or not accessed PHP services. The content of the interviews was transcribed and analyzed through inductive reflective thematic analysis. The transcripts were coded, and key themes were identified using an iterative process. Results The participants were 15 women over the age of 18 years. Three main themes were identified: 1) lacking guidance on PFDs and PHP services; 2) neglecting PFDs and their effects; 3) demanding access to quality PHP services. Conclusion The results of this study provide valuable insights into the access issues faced by women regarding their pelvic health. Findings highlight numerous unmet needs, among which the need to improve knowledge and awareness of PFDs, to address the trivialization of PFD symptoms, and to ensure access to PHP in rural areas.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".