ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Requirements and Value Elicitation for a High-Fidelity Pelvic Floor Simulator for Physiotherapists: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physiotherapists lack training opportunities for repeated practice of pelvic examinations for the identification of pelvic floor disorders (PFDs), leading to low confidence in the clinical setting. Pelvic simulators exist and are a valuable supplement to the medical curriculum, yet none demonstrate pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function or dysfunction. To design effective simulators, an assessment of end-user requirements is essential. Objective: This study aimed to elicit physiotherapists' needs and requirements for a high-fidelity PFM simulator and the associated use cases. Methods: This study followed a mixed methods design by collecting qualitative and quantitative data from a web-based survey. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and differences between demographic groups were calculated using 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov 2-sided tests. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: In total, 66 physiotherapists completed the survey. The most common suggested use cases of the simulator were for training and professional development (56/66, 84.9%), and patient education (48/66, 72.7%). Pelvic organ prolapse and muscle tone function and dysfunction were identified as the most useful PFDs for the simulator to demonstrate. Positional tracking and force sensing were considered important features and there was a preference for a generic over a pathology-specific or patient-specific simulator. A total of 3 themes emerged through the qualitative analysis: prioritizing patient care; representing the variability in anatomy and PFDs for simulator realism; and consideration of the implementation, cost, and accessibility of simulators. Conclusions: There is value in PFM simulators for physiotherapists for multiple use cases. Design recommendations include using realistic materials, demonstrating PFM dynamics, modularity to vary the complexity for different end-users, offering a range of feedback modalities for position and pressure sensing, and ensuring affordability and curriculum integration.
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.