A randomized comparison of training programs using a pelvic model designed to enhance pelvic floor examination in patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal Vol. 32; no. 2; pp. 423 - 431
• Main Authors: Giroux, Maria, Funk, Suzanne, Karreman, Erwin, Kamencic, Huse, Bhargava, Rashmi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.02.2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Clinical medicine; Clinical trials; Gynecology; Medical students; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Obstetrics; Original; Original Article; Pain; Patients; Pelvis; Teaching methods; Training; Urology; Variance analysis; Video-based teaching; Pelvic floor musculature; Pelvic model; Teaching methods; In-person teaching; Chronic pelvic pain
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04487-y

Introduction Pelvic floor myalgia is a common cause and contributor to chronic pelvic pain [Neurourol Urodyn 4:984–1008 (2017)]. The purpose of this study was to compare in-person versus video-based teaching methods of a comprehensive assessment of the pelvic floor musculature on a pelvic model. Methods A randomized controlled trial of 46 participants was conducted. The participants were randomized into two groups. Both groups were taught by the same pelvic floor physiotherapist using two different teaching methods on a pelvic model. Group 1 watched an instructional video, whereas group 2 had in-person training. Both groups underwent pre- and post-training assessments consisting of a written examination and an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Primary outcome measure was the change in participants’ pre- and post-training assessment scores. Secondary outcome measures were perceived changes in both participants’ comfort level in performing pelvic floor examination and applicability of the training program to clinical practice. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the teaching methods in the degree of improvement of the participants’ mean written assessment scores ( p  = 0.58), OSCE scores ( p  = 0.15), and perceived comfort level ( p  = 0.19). Participants’ mean pre- and post-assessment scores improved significantly ( p  < 0.001). Participants reported the training program to be applicable towards their clinical practice. Conclusions This study demonstrates that learners’ assessment of pelvic floor musculature can be enhanced using varied teaching methods on a pelvic model.