CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsReproductive Health and Contraception

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

Open access
McEvoy, Katrina, Griffin, Rebecca, Harris, Melissa, Moger, Hannah, Wright, Olivia, Nurkic, Irena, Thompson, Judith, Das, Rebekah +1 more·2023·International Urogynecology Journal
DOI 10.1007/s00192-023-05540-2PMC PMC10590327
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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 claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-023-05540-2

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All international surveys of pessary practice highlight a common theme of pessary practitioners wanting further training in pessary management and a lack of accreditation for training.

    “All international surveys of pessary practice highlight a common theme of pessary practitioners wanting further training in pessary management and a lack of accreditation for training [47, 48, 49, 50].”

    From How Can We Improve the Assessment and Indifferent Outcomes From Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management From Conservative and Surgical Therapies? ICI‐RS 2025 (2026) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Results (Training in PM; page not provided) report that 67% of Australian respondents wanted further training, and the Discussion says most lacked workplace competency standards. The Introduction notes that international practitioners often work without standardised training requirements, but this paper does not establish that all international surveys found both a desire for further training and a lack of training accreditation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McEvoy, K., Griffin, R., Harris, M., Moger, H., Wright, O., Nurkic, I., Thompson, J., Das, R., & Neumann, P.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Neumann, Patricia
ORCID
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-05-24
Volume
34
Issue
10
Pages
2519-2527
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
DOI
10.1007/s00192-023-05540-2
PMC
PMC10590327
OpenAlex
W4377940834
Cited by
6
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of South Australia
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, pessary, healthcare workers, physiotherapists, nurses, general practitioners, competency standards, ring pessary, Australia
MeSH terms
Adult, Australia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pessaries, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review