MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416189196 · doi:10.12809/hkjgom.24.2.367

Urinary incontinence during pregnancy and postpartum pelvic floor muscle exercise: a prospective study

2024· article· W4416189196 on OpenAlexaff
Yun Ting Lee, Lai Fong Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueHong Kong Journal of Gynaecology Obstetrics and Midwifery · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelvic Floor MuscleUrinary incontinencePregnancyProspective cohort studyPelvic floorPostpartum period

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To investigate the incidence of urinary incontinence (UI) during pregnancy and after delivery, perceptions of UI, effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle exercise (PFME) on UI, and risk factors for UI among pregnant women.Methods: Chinese women aged ≥18 years at 35 to 37 weeks of gestation were invited to participate.Perceptions of UI were assessed using a questionnaire that comprises seven statements.Urinary symptoms were assessed using the self-report six-item Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6).Women were considered to have UI when they had positive scores on any of the incontinence items.Women who reported to have UI symptoms were assessed by a physiotherapist in the postnatal ward and were taught PFME.UI impact on quality of life was assessed using the self-report seven-item Incontinence Impact Questionnaire.Participants with UI during pregnancy who delivered in our hospital were followed up at 6 weeks postnatally through telephone.Their adherence to PFME was assessed in terms of the mean number of contractions performed per day.Results: Of 1134 participants, the incidence of UI was 73.0% during pregnancy and 21.9% after delivery.Predictors for UI during pregnancy were a history of UI before pregnancy (odds ratio [OR]=14.40,p<0.001), higher pre-pregnancy body mass index (OR=1.04,p=0.034), and previous vaginal delivery (OR=2.06,p=0.001), whereas predictors for UI after delivery were vaginal delivery in the index pregnancy (OR=3.86,p<0.001), older age (OR=1.12,p<0.001), a history of UI before pregnancy (OR=1.86,p=0.028), and total score of items 2 to 4 on the UDI-6 during pregnancy (OR=1.20,p=0.015).86.4% of participants reported poor or no adherence to PFME.Adherence to postnatal PFME was not associated with UI after delivery (p=0.477).Women with higher education levels adhered more to PFME (p=0.008).Perceptions of UI were not associated with adherence to postnatal PFME.Conclusion: A history of pre-pregnancy UI is the main predictor for UI during pregnancy, whereas vaginal delivery is the main predictor for UI after delivery.The effect of postpartum PFME on UI after delivery is not significant, probably owing to the low rate of adherence to PFME.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHong Kong Journal of Gynaecology Obstetrics and Midwifery→Same topicPelvic floor disorders treatments→French-language works237,207→