Feasibility, acceptability and effects of a group pelvic floor muscle telerehabilitation program to treat urinary incontinence in older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionUrinary incontinence (UI) is one of the most prevalent health concerns in women age 65 and over. The recommended first-line treatment for UI is individual pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). However, healthcare systems worldwide are unable to meet the demand for this resource-intensive approach. Recently, the Group Rehabilitation Or IndividUal Physiotherapy (GROUP) trial showed that group-based PFMT was not inferior to individual PFMT to treat UI in older women, despite using fewer resources. This study aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effects on UI-related symptoms and associated quality of life (QoL) of an online adaptation of the GROUP program (teleGROUP) for UI in older women.Methods and analysisThis pilot study will involve the recruitment of 32 older women with UI. Participants’ attendance to online sessions, adherence to weekly home exercises, and side effects, in addition to the physiotherapist's fidelity to the program delivery will be collected to evaluate the program's feasibility. Participants’ dropout rates, reasons for dropout, satisfaction and usability scores will be collected to evaluate the program's acceptability for participants. A survey will evaluate the program's acceptability for the physiotherapists. Additionally, at the end of the study, qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups will investigate further feasibility and acceptability. To measure the effects of teleGROUP, number of weekly leakages and percentage reduction will be the primary outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".