ArticleInternational journal of nursing sciences2023
Sitting on the fence: A qualitative study of perceptions regarding pelvic floor muscle training among pregnant women with urinary incontinence.
Article in International journal of nursing sciences, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Facilitators and Barriers to Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercise Among Patients with Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: A Meta-Synthesis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Gender Disparities in the Prevalence, Trends, and Determinants of Later-Life Urinary Incontinence: A Disproportionate Burden on Women.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2026Article
- Perceptions and Experiences of Barriers to Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Among Pregnant Women: A Descriptive Phenomenological Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in managing urinary incontinence in pregnant women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the perceptions of pregnant women with urinary incontinence toward pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). Methods: Semi-structured personal interviews were used to collect data. Pregnant women with urinary incontinence and no contraindications to PFMT were recruited for semi-structured interviews in the Outpatient Department of Obstetrics in a Class A tertiary hospital in Shenzhen from October to November 2021. Purposive sampling was performed, and Braun & Clarke thematic analysis was used for the data analysis. Results: Sixteen pregnant women with urinary incontinence and a mean age of (30.81 ± 3.66) years participated in the interview. "Sitting on the fence" was the predominant theme acquired after analysis. Pregnant women had contradictory attitudes toward PFMT. A total of four themes and nine sub-themes have been extracted: "It is normal and does not really matter" (normalized urinary incontinence, insufficient attention to PFMT); "There is nothing I can do" (insufficient subjective motivations, limitation of objective conditions, lack of social support); "We have to take care of ourselves" (the increasing self-care awareness, emerging autonomous motivation to practice PFMT); "Training should be guaranteed" (requiring the guidance, suggestions, and surveillance of healthcare professionals; requiring the perceptive benefits). Conclusions: This study reveals varying attitudes towards PFMT among pregnant women with urinary incontinence. To better promote pregnant women's engagement in PFMT, it is necessary to provide professional guidance, increase self-care awareness, improve social support, and emphasize the benefits of PFMT.
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.