ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Should pregnant women know their individual risk of future pelvic floor dysfunction? A qualitative study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Female pelvic floor protection-Where do we have to go?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Review
- An assessment of the relationship between urethral hypermobility as measured by ultrasound and the symptoms of stress urinary incontinence in primiparous women 9-18 months postpartum.Journal of ultrasonography · 2024Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse: Women's experiences of Accessing Care & Recommendations for improvement.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Prevalence and Severity of Pelvic Floor Disorders during Pregnancy: Does the Trimester Make a Difference?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe study aimed to explore: • pregnant women's and healthcare professionals' perspectives on provision of individual risk scores for future Pelvic Floor Dysfunction (PFD), • the feasibility of providing this during routine maternity care, • actions women might take as a result of knowing their PFD risk.
methodsQualitative study.
settingUK NHS Health Board.
participantsPregnant women (n = 14), obstetricians (n = 6), midwives (n = 8) and physiotherapists (n = 3). A purposive sample of pregnant women and obstetric healthcare professionals were introduced to the UR-CHOICE calculator, which estimates a woman's PFD risk, and were shown examples of low, medium and high-risk women. Data were collected in 2019 by semi-structured interview and focus group and analysed using the Framework Approach.
resultsWomen's PFD knowledge was limited, meaning they were unlikely to raise PFD risk with healthcare professionals. Women believed it was important to know their individual PFD risk and that knowledge would motivate them to undertake preventative activities. Healthcare professionals believed it was important to discuss PFD risk, however limited time and concerns over increased caesarean section rates prevented this in all but high-risk women or those that expressed concerns.
conclusionWomen want to know their PFD risk. As part of an intervention based within a pregnant woman/ maternity healthcare professional consultation, the UR-CHOICE calculator could support discussion to consider preventative PFD activities and to enable women to be more prepared should PFD occur. A randomised controlled trial is needed to test the effectiveness of an intervention which includes the UR-CHOICE calculator in reducing PFD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.