Establishing Expert-Based Recommendations for the Conservative Management of Pregnancy-Related Diastasis Rectus Abdominis: A Delphi Consensus Study

S. Dufour, S. Bernard, B. Murray-Davis, N. Graham
{"title":"Establishing Expert-Based Recommendations for the Conservative Management of Pregnancy-Related Diastasis Rectus Abdominis: A Delphi Consensus Study","authors":"S. Dufour, S. Bernard, B. Murray-Davis, N. Graham","doi":"10.1097/JWH.0000000000000130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Pregnancy-related diastasis rectus abdominis (DRA) is a prevalent condition. Consequences of a widened linea alba ultimately remain unknown. Current evidence on conservative management is conflicting, creating debate among practitioners. This study aims at developing a set of expert consensus-based recommendations for the assessment and conservative management of DRA. Methods: Selected Canadian women's health physiotherapists were invited to participate in a 3-phase Delphi consensus study. Phase I comprised 82 items divided into 6 domains, and to determine agreement, each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as agreement greater than 80%. In phase II, items receiving consensus were ranked and collapsed and summary descriptions were proposed. In phase III, final consensus was determined. Results: A total of 21 of the 28 (75%) invited experts participated. Phase I generated 38 consensus statements. Phase II translated into 30 consensus statements as well as modifications to proposed summary statements for each data category. Remaining items did not reach consensus. Consensus for 28 expert-based recommendations was achieved in phase III. Conclusions: This study generated 28 expert-based recommendations achieved through a 3-phase consensus process for the assessment and conservative management of DRA. Nationally recognized Canadian expert physiotherapists in women's health agree that the impairments and dysfunctions related to DRA are multidimensional and emphasize the need for a global and tailored care approach. Clinical Relevance: This is the first study to establish consensus across key stakeholders to assist in bridging the current evidence-practice gap regarding pregnancy-related DRA. Our findings point to matters that require further study. Level of Evidence: 5 (expert opinion).","PeriodicalId":74018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health physical therapy","volume":"45 1","pages":"73–81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/JWH.0000000000000130","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health physical therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JWH.0000000000000130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

Purpose: Pregnancy-related diastasis rectus abdominis (DRA) is a prevalent condition. Consequences of a widened linea alba ultimately remain unknown. Current evidence on conservative management is conflicting, creating debate among practitioners. This study aims at developing a set of expert consensus-based recommendations for the assessment and conservative management of DRA. Methods: Selected Canadian women's health physiotherapists were invited to participate in a 3-phase Delphi consensus study. Phase I comprised 82 items divided into 6 domains, and to determine agreement, each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as agreement greater than 80%. In phase II, items receiving consensus were ranked and collapsed and summary descriptions were proposed. In phase III, final consensus was determined. Results: A total of 21 of the 28 (75%) invited experts participated. Phase I generated 38 consensus statements. Phase II translated into 30 consensus statements as well as modifications to proposed summary statements for each data category. Remaining items did not reach consensus. Consensus for 28 expert-based recommendations was achieved in phase III. Conclusions: This study generated 28 expert-based recommendations achieved through a 3-phase consensus process for the assessment and conservative management of DRA. Nationally recognized Canadian expert physiotherapists in women's health agree that the impairments and dysfunctions related to DRA are multidimensional and emphasize the need for a global and tailored care approach. Clinical Relevance: This is the first study to establish consensus across key stakeholders to assist in bridging the current evidence-practice gap regarding pregnancy-related DRA. Our findings point to matters that require further study. Level of Evidence: 5 (expert opinion).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
建立基于专家的保守治疗妊娠相关性腹直肌转移的建议:德尔菲共识研究
目的:妊娠相关性腹直肌转移(DRA)是一种常见的疾病。白线变宽的后果最终仍不得而知。目前关于保守管理的证据是相互矛盾的,在从业者之间产生了争论。本研究旨在为DRA的评估和保守管理发展一套基于专家共识的建议。方法:邀请加拿大女性健康理疗师参加一项三阶段德尔菲共识研究。第一阶段包括82个项目,分为6个领域,为了确定一致性,每个项目都用5分李克特量表进行评分。共识定义为同意度大于80%。在第二阶段,对获得一致意见的项目进行排序和分解,并提出概要说明。在第三阶段,最终达成共识。结果:28位特邀专家中有21位参与,占75%。第一阶段产生了38份共识声明。第二阶段转化为30份协商一致声明以及对每一数据类别拟议摘要声明的修改。其余项目未达成协商一致意见。在第三阶段达成了28项基于专家的建议的共识。结论:本研究通过三个阶段的共识过程产生了28条专家建议,用于DRA的评估和保守管理。全国公认的加拿大妇女健康物理治疗师专家一致认为,与DRA有关的损伤和功能障碍是多方面的,并强调需要采取一种全球和量身定制的护理办法。临床相关性:这是第一个在关键利益相关者之间建立共识的研究,以帮助弥合目前关于妊娠相关DRA的证据-实践差距。我们的发现指出了一些需要进一步研究的问题。证据等级:5(专家意见)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guidelines: Rehabilitation Interventions for Urgency Urinary Incontinence, Urinary Urgency, and/or Urinary Frequency in Adult Women Clinical Practice Guidelines: Rehabilitation Interventions for Urgency Urinary Incontinence, Urinary Urgency, and/or Urinary Frequency in Adult Women Running Gait Retraining in the Management of a Multiparous Runner With Chronic Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Case Study New Name, New Format! APTA 2023 Combined Sections Meeting Posters and Platforms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1