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

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.

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.

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.

This study demonstrates that learners’ assessment of pelvic floor musculature can be enhanced using varied teaching methods on a pelvic model. Similar content being viewed by others Abbreviations - ANOVA: - Analysis of variance - OSCE: -

structured clinical examination - PFM: - Pelvic floor myalgia

Doggweiler R, Whitmore KE, Meijink JM, Drake MJ, Frawley H, Nordling J, et al. A standard for terminology in chronic pelvic pain syndromes: a report from the chronic pelvic pain working group of the international continence society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;4:984–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23072. Kavvadias T, Baessler K, Schuessler B. Pelvic pain in urogynecology. Part 1: evaluation, definitions and diagnosis. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:385–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1218-x. Pastore EA, Katzman W. Recognizing myofascial pelvic pain in the female patient with chronic pelvic pain. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2012;41(5):680–91. Fitzgerald CM, Neville CE, Mallinson T, Badillo SA, Hynes CK, Tu FF. Pelvic floor muscle examination in female chronic pelvic pain. J Reprod Med. 2011;56(3–4):117–22. Spitznagle TM, Robinson CM. Myofascial pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2014;41(3):409–32. Massoth C, Roder H, Ohlenburg H, Hessler M, Zarbock A, Popping D, et al. High-fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students. BMC Medical Education. 2019;19:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1464-7. Liu K, Shapiro J, Robertson D, Chamberlain S. Pelvic examinations by medical students. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32(99):872–4. DeStephano CC, Chou B, Patel S, Rebecca S, Nancy H. A randomized controlled trial of birth simulation for medical students. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(10):91.e1–91e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.024. Edwards S, Cass G, Lenguerrand E, Fox R, Crofts J. Realism and construct validity of novel pelvic models of common gynecologic conditions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124(3):270–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.016. Hilal Z, Kumpernatz A, Rezniczek GA, Cetin C, Tempfer-Bentz E, Tempfer C. A randomized comparison of video demonstration versus hands-on training of medical students for vacuum delivery using objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS). Medicine. 2017;96(11):e6355. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006355. Buerkle B, Pueth J, Hefler LA, Tempfer-Bentz EK, Tempfer CB. Objective structured assessment of technical skills evaluation of theoretical compared with hands-on training of shoulder dystocia management: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(4):809–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31826af9a9. Buerke B, Rueter K, Hefler L, Tempfer-Bentz EK, Tempfer C. Objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) evaluation of theoretical versus hands-on training of vaginal breech delivery management: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171(2):252–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.015. Sakamoto Y, Okamoto S, Shimzu K, Araki Y, Hirakawa A, Wakabayashi T. Hands-on simulation versus traditional video-learning in teaching microsurgery technique. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2017;57:238–45. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.oa.2016-0317. Matsumoto ED, Hamstra SJ, Radomski SB, Cusimano MD. The effect of bench model fidelity on endourological skills: a randomized controlled study. J Urol. 2002;167(3):1243–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65274-3. Nilsson C, Sorensen BL, Sorensen JL. Comparing hands-on and video training for postpartum hemorrhage management. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(5):517–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12372. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference control. Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15. Narula N, Ahmed L, Rudkowski J. An evaluation of the “5 minute medicine” video podcast series compared to conventional medical resources for the internal medicine clerkship. Medical Teacher. 2012;34(11):e751–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.689446. Dong C, Goh PS. Twelve tips for the effective use of videos in medical education. Medical Teacher. 2015;37(2):140–5. Wartell M. Demonstrating procedures with video. Mass Transit. 1994;20(2):37–0. Rakestraw PG, Irby DM, Vontver LA. The use of mental practice in pelvic examination instruction. J Med Educ. 1983;58:335–40. Siwe K, Wijma K, Stjernquist M, Wijma B. Medical students learning the pelvic examination: comparison of outcome in terms of skills between a professional patient and a clinical patient model. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68(3):211–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.007. Janjua A, Roberts T, Okeahialam N, Clark TJ. Cost-effective analysis of teaching pelvic examination skills using Gynaecology teaching associates (GTAs) compared with manikin models (the CEAT study). BMJ Open. 2018;8:e015823. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015823. Jha V, Setna Z, Al-Hity A, Quinton ND, Roberts TE. Patient involvement in teaching and assessing intimate examination skills: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2010;44:437–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03609.

We thank the Dilawri Simulation Centre at the Regina General Hospital and Marie-Josée Forget at Total Pelvic Health for providing the pelvic models. Funding This study received funding from the Provincial Department Head Discretionary Research Fund at the University of Saskatchewan. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions Maria Giroux: Project Development, Video Preparation, Data Collection, Manuscript Preparation. Suzanne Funk: Project Development, Video Preparation, Data Collection, Manuscript Preparation. Huse Kamencic: Project Development, Video Preparation, Data Collection, Manuscript Preparation. Erwin Karreman: Project Development, Data Analysis, Manuscript Preparation. Rashmi Bhargava: Project Development, Data Collection, Manuscript Preparation. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Additional information Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Prior presentations: Video (1) August 2019-International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) Academy-the training program selected as the monthly e-lecture. Workshop: (1) March 2019-Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) West/Central CME (Lake Louise, AB, Canada). Selected in the top five abstracts: (1) April 2020-Canadian Society of Pelvic Medicine (CSPM) Annual Meeting. Podium presentations: (2) September 2019-American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) Joint Scientific Meeting (Nashville, TN, US). (3) September 2019-Canadian Society for the Advancement of Gynecologic Excellence (CanSAGE4) (Ottawa, ON, Canada). Poster presentations: (4) June 2019-Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) Annual Clinical Scientific Conference Showcase Showdown (Halifax, NS, Canada). (5) October 2019-International Pelvic Pain Society (IPPS) Annual Scientific Meeting (Toronto, ON, Canada). Electronic Supplementary Material The video is available on https://obgynacademy.com/chronic-pelvic-pain/. This video has been published as the monthly e-lecture at the IUGA Academy in August 2019. Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Giroux, M., Funk, S., Karreman, E. et al. A randomized comparison of training programs using a pelvic model designed to enhance pelvic floor examination in patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain. Int Urogynecol J 32, 423–431 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04487-y Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04487-y