↓ Skip to main content

Opportunities, challenges and concerns for the implementation and uptake of pelvic floor muscle assessment and exercises during the childbearing years: protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Opportunities, challenges and concerns for the implementation and uptake of pelvic floor muscle assessment and exercises during the childbearing years: protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0420-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria E. Salmon, E. Jean C. Hay-Smith, Rachel Jarvie, Sarah Dean, Eivor Oborn, Susan E. Bayliss, Debra Bick, Clare Davenport, Khaled M. Ismail, Christine MacArthur, Mark Pearson, on behalf of the APPEAL study

Abstract

Pregnancy and childbirth are important risk factors for urinary incontinence (UI) in women. Pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) are effective for prevention of UI. Guidelines for the management of UI recommend offering pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) to women during their first pregnancy as a preventive strategy. The objective of this review is to understand the relationships between individual, professional, inter-professional and organisational opportunities, challenges and concerns that could be essential to maximise the impact of PFMT during childbearing years and to effect the required behaviour change. Following systematic searches to identify sources for inclusion, we shall use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to produce a conceptual model, mapping the relationships between individual, professional, inter-professional and organisational factors and the implementation, acceptability and uptake of PFME education, assessment and training during the childbearing years. Purposive sampling will be used to identify potentially relevant material relating to topics or areas of interest which emerge as the review progresses. A wide range of empirical and non-empirical sources will be eligible for inclusion to encompass the breadth of relevant individual, professional, inter-professional and organisational issues relating to PFME during childbearing years. Data analysis and synthesis will identify key themes, concepts, connections and relationships between these themes. Findings will be interpreted in relation to existing frameworks of implementation, attitudes and beliefs of individuals and behaviour change. We will collate examples to illustrate relationships expressed in the conceptual model and identify potential links between the model and drivers for change. The CIS review findings and resulting conceptual model will illustrate relationships between factors that might affect the implementation, acceptability and uptake of PFME education, assessment and training during the childbearing years. The model will inform the development and evaluation of a training package to support midwives with implementation and delivery of effective PFME during the antenatal period. The review forms part of the first phase of the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research funded 'Antenatal Preventative Pelvic floor Exercises And Localisation (APPEAL)' programme (grant number: RP-PG-0514-20002) to prevent poor health linked to pregnancy and childbirth-related UI. PROSPERO: CRD42016042792.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 24 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Other 10 6%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 52 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 51 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 54 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,856,162
of 25,399,318 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,257
of 2,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,330
of 422,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#24
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,399,318 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.