4.2 Article

Do community-dwelling pregnant women know about pelvic floor disorder?

Journal

WOMEN & HEALTH
Volume 61, Issue 6, Pages 609-616

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03630242.2021.1942398

Keywords

Incontinence; knowledge; pregnancy < reproductive health; prolapse

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess knowledge and awareness of pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) among pregnant women, finding low levels of knowledge and awareness across all trimesters. Urinary incontinence (UI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) were observed in a percentage of the women. Attending antenatal education (ANE) was associated with higher knowledge scores in PFDs.
Our study aimed to assess the knowledge and awareness regarding pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) among pregnant women. We additionally evaluated whether the knowledge of PFDs was different in relation to gestational age, parity, the attendance to an antenatal education (ANE), and history of urinary incontinence (UI) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (POP). A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in pregnant women from all trimesters of pregnancy. The Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ) and three questions were used for knowledge and awareness. Two hundred and forty-one women participated in the study. Of them, 18.6% (n = 46) and 3.6% (n = 9) had UI and POP, respectively. The median of the PIKQ-UI and the PIKQ-POP scores were 6 (min-max: 0-11) and 5 (min-max: 0-12), respectively. The median PIKQ-UI and PIKQ-POP scores were higher in women who had attended ANE. There was no significant difference in terms of gestational age, parity, the attendance to ANE, and the history of pelvic floor disorder (p > .05). Knowledge and awareness were low among the women in all trimesters. Education programs involving pelvic floor training should be organized for pregnant women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available