Pessary management practices for pelvic organ prolapse among Australian health care practitioners: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal pessaries are a low-cost, effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and an alternative to surgery. Whilst traditionally pessary management (PM) has been provided by medical professionals, particularly gynaecologists, recent international studies found other professionals, including physiotherapists and nurses, may be involved. It is unknown which health care practitioners (HCPs) provide PM for POP in Australia or the distribution of services. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study design, a self-reported electronic survey investigated Australian HCPs providing PM for POP. Purposive and snowball sampling targeted HCPs, professional organisations and health care facilities. Descriptive statistics described PM in relation to HCP professional profile, PM provision and geographical location. RESULTS: There were 536 respondents (324 physiotherapists, 148 specialists, 33 general practitioners (GPs) and 31 nurses providing PM. Most worked within metropolitan regions (n = 332, 64%), 140 (27%) in rural, 108 (21%) in regional and 10 (2%) in remote areas. Most worked privately (n = 418, 85%), 153 (46%) worked publicly and 85 (17%) in both. Ring pessaries were most commonly used, followed by cube and Gellhorn. HCPs reported variable training in PM, and 336 (69%) had no mandatory workplace competency standard; however, 324 (67%) wanted further training. Women travelled long distances to access services. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors, nurses and physiotherapists provided PM in Australia. HCPs had variable training and experience in PM, with rural and remote HCPs particularly wanting further training. This study highlights the need for accessible PM services, standardised and competency-based training for HCPs, and governance structures ensuring safe care.

The relationship between symptom severity, bother and psychological factors in women with pelvic organ prolapse: A cross-sectional observational study.

AIM: The primary aim is to explore the relationship between symptom severity and prolapse bother in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The secondary aim is to determine the association between psychological variables and prolapse bother. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted via online surveys assessing POP bother (visual analog scale for bother), POP symptom severity (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Vaginal Symptoms), and psychological measures of depression and anxiety (Kessler psychological distress scale [K-10]), catastrophizing (modified pain catastrophizing scale [mPCS]), and self-efficacy (modified pain self-efficacy questionnaire [mPSEQ]) in women with self-reported POP. Symptom severity, bother and psychological variables were analyzed using linear regression. RESULTS: Seventy-six women with a mean (SD) age of 42.8 (14.57) years were included in analysis. A moderate to strong positive linear relationship (R2 = 0.449, p < 0.001) was found between symptom severity and POP bother. Prolapse bother and psychological variables were moderately correlated, where increased K-10 scores (R2 = 0.230, p = 0.001), higher mPCS scores (R2 = 0.460, p < 0.001), and lower mPSEQ scores (R2 = 0.460, p < 0.001) were associated with increased POP bother. Moderate and severe catastrophizing was associated with significantly higher POP bother, with mean POP bother scores of 7.861 ± 0.45 (p < 0.001) and 8.652 ± 0.45 (p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: A moderate positive relationship between POP bother and symptom severity was found, with greater psychological distress and lower self-efficacy associated with increasing POP bother. Women presenting with POP should be screened for psychological factors to guide management.

Development of a multinational, multidisciplinary competency framework for physiotherapy training in pessary management: an E-Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal support pessaries are intravaginal devices designed to relieve symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse, but they can cause serious medical complications if not managed well. Physiotherapists are well placed to manage pessaries, but there are no guidelines on the training required for competency in pessary management (PM). METHODS: A scoping review of current literature on PM training was conducted to develop draft competency standards, which were reviewed by a multidisciplinary focus group. Using e-Delphi methodology, a multidisciplinary and multinational expert panel then refined the standards. Three rounds of e-Delphi online surveys were conducted, with individual participant feedback and one videoconference to discuss items that did not reach consensus. Consensus was set at 80% agreement and stability measured using kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Pessary training competency standards, developed by 29 experts, covered three key domains including: (1) prerequisite knowledge and understanding; (2) entrustable professional activities; (3) pessary-specific standards under ten key roles. Consensus was reached on all 73 (100%) competency standards and stability demonstrated for 95.9% of standards. There was no attrition of expert panel participants through the e-Delphi rounds. CONCLUSIONS: This e-Delphi study provides the first, robust recommendations on training standards for physiotherapists in PM. These competency standards will provide clinicians with a self-assessment tool, and educators and training institutions with a benchmark in training for PM, which should improve options and reduce risk for women with prolapse being managed with a pessary.