Search

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a 'low' RoB, one had 'some concerns', while nine were at a 'high' RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.

Conflict management is rarely explored among physiotherapists though they often work in teams. Hence, this study explored attitudes, perceived competencies, beliefs, training experiences, and needs in conflict management among Italian physiotherapists. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey study between June and September 2023 among Italian physiotherapists. The survey instrument comprised four sections. Section 1: Socio-Demographic and Professional Data: Explored participant profiles and conflict frequency. Section 2: Attitudes and Competences: assess conflict-related behaviours and management styles (Likert Scale). Section 3: Training Experiences and Needs: Evaluated training importance and conflict-related issues with other professionals (Likert Scale). Section 4: Beliefs About Factors: Participants rated (0–10) factors influencing conflict management and its impact on care and well-being. Descriptive analyses were performed, presenting continuous data as mean (SD) and categorical data as frequencies/percentages. Likert scale responses were dichotomised (agreement/disagreement), and consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement. Median, quartiles, and box-and-whisker plots depicted responses were used for 0-to-10 scales. Physiotherapists (n = 203; mean age: 39±10.40) generally leaned towards a constructive communication style, characterised by compromise and collaboration, viewing conflict management as an opportunity to grow. There was a disparity between their exhibited behaviours and self-assessment of appropriateness in conflict resolution. Only 27.6% considered their conflict resolution skills as satisfactory. However, 85.7% acknowledged the significance of being trained in conflict management. Challenges were evident in conflicts within interprofessional relationships and communication with superiors. Both personal and organisational factors were identified as influencing conflict management, with participants recognising the detrimental impact of conflicts on their well-being and patient care. This study highlighted educational gaps in conflict management among Italian physiotherapists, showing areas of improvement in their training. Our results suggested that physiotherapists might need additional training in conflict management to enhance workplace well-being and the quality of care provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Physiotherapy is gaining a central role in oncology. However, the training and competencies needed by physiotherapists in oncology rehabilitation are still unclear. This study aims to articulate the training trajectory of physiotherapists in oncology rehabilitation from entry‐level education to advanced education degrees. Methods: Qualitative focus group study following a 'Reflexive Thematic Analysis' for data analysis. Participants were Italian physiotherapists with expertise in Oncology Rehabilitation (either clinically or academically) and Physiotherapy Bachelor of Science (BSc) course leaders, selected through purposive sampling. Results: Two focus groups were conducted with 14 participants. Six themes were developed: 1. 'Entry‐Level Education in Oncology Rehabilitation: Let's Have a Taste', as the BSc introduces oncology rehabilitation. 2. 'Basic Knowledge: Building up the Library' as students acquire basic knowledge on oncology rehabilitation during their BSc; 3. 'Learning by Experience: The Relevance of the Placement' to answer the question "Is this the right road for me?"; 4. 'Clinical Reasoning and Competencies in Oncology Rehabilitation Embedded in Uncertainty' because oncology physiotherapists need to deal with the uncertainty of their patients' status; 5. 'Advanced Education Degree Skills: from Appetiser to the Main Course', as advanced education degree courses allow for becoming an expert in the field; 6. 'A Call to Action for Physiotherapists: Prevention—Diagnosis—Survivorship & End of Life', to realise their critical role in all the phases of the oncology path. Conclusions: The BSc in Physiotherapy provides a foundation for future physiotherapists to understand oncology rehabilitation, but advanced education is necessary for expertise. The findings of this study have important implications for creating a shared physiotherapy curriculum in oncology rehabilitation. Implication for Physiotherapy Practice: This study has significant implications for improving physiotherapy curricula in oncology rehabilitation, positively impacting the skills and competencies of practitioners in this paramount field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]