A pelvic health eRehabilitation program to address urogenital impairments after breast and gynecologic cancer: A proof-of-concept study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Incontinence and vulvar pain are common urogenital dysfunctions after breast and gynecological cancers (BGCs). Recent evidence suggests that pelvic health physiotherapy can improve these dysfunctions and enhance quality of survivorship, but several barriers limit access to such care. Virtual programs are proposed as a strategy to improve access. Aim: The main aim of this proof-of-concept study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the newly designed Pelvic Health eRehabilitation Program in people treated for BGCs. The study also aims to explore the preliminary effectiveness of the Program in reducing urogenital impairments. Methods: This study uses a proof-of-concept, interventional prospective cohort design. Twenty individuals with BGCs presenting with urogenital dysfunction (score ≥2 on the Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire) will be recruited in the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Alberta. The Program includes twelve weekly small-group online educational sessions with a pelvic health physiotherapist, five individual exercise prescription sessions, and access to a variety of online resources. The following standardized patient-reported outcome measures will be used: the International Consultation on Incontinence modular questionnaires for bladder and bowel symptoms, the Vulvar Pain Assessment Questionnaire, and the Female Sexual Function Index. Evaluations will be conducted before (E1), halfway through (E2), and immediately after (E3) the intervention. Conclusion: Findings from this study will inform the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the Program for individuals experiencing urogenital dysfunction following BGCs treatment, supporting future development of a randomized controlled trial. This virtual Program holds promise to improve equity in access to pelvic health services.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".