ArticleOpen research Europe2026
Pelvic floor complaint-related psychological distress recorded by pelvic physical therapists in the Netherlands: Additional analysis of data from an exploratory file review study.
Article in Open research Europe, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with pelvic floor complaints (PFCs) experience various levels of PFC-related psychological distress along with their complaints. Paying attention to PFC-related psychological distress may enhance the intended biopsychosocial treatment approach in pelvic physical therapy practice. To our knowledge, the extent to which this distress is recorded by pelvic physical therapists in association with different combinations of PFCs has not been previously investigated. Aim: This exploratory, hypothesis-generating retrospective file review study provides a first impression of the PFC-related distress recorded by pelvic physical therapists along with (combinations of ) PFCs. Method: Pelvic physical therapists documented PFCs and PFC-related distress as recorded in patient files in an online survey. Descriptive statistics and correlations were calculated, and latent class analyses were performed to gain insight into indicative profiles of PFCs and associated psychological distress. Results: A model with five profiles of PFCs and PFC-related psychological distress was selected. These profiles appear to be related to pregnancy and parity. A substantial proportion of distress was recorded with two profiles. One profile, most characteristic of pregnant patients, indicated a high probability of defecation and micturition problems and pelvic pain, including a high likelihood of insecurity, loss of control, and disappointment. The other profile, most characteristic of nulliparous patients, indicated a high probability of painful intercourse and micturition problems, including a high likelihood of disappointment, insecurity, helplessness, and sexual distress. Conclusion: The results show encouraging proof of attention given to PFC-related distress in pelvic physical therapy practice, despite this not being the primary focus of pelvic physical therapists. Based on our data, it remains unclear whether the psychological impact of PFCs receives sufficient attention in pelvic physical therapy. The results could also indicate the need for a more prominent position for PFC-related distress in patient files.
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.