Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study showed it is possible to train different staff types to effectively deliver pelvic floor muscle training to women, with outcomes improving across all models.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Margaret Maxwell 1,*, Karen Berry 1, Sarah Wane 2, Suzanne Hagen 3, Doreen McClurg 3, Edward Duncan 1, Purva Abhyankar 4, Andrew Elders 3, Catherine Best 1, Joyce Wilkinson 4, Helen Mason 5, Linda Fenocchi 5, Eileen Calveley 1, Karen Guerrero 6, Douglas Tincello 7

1 Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
2 Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
3 Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
4 Division of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
5 Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
6 Department of Urogynaecology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
7 Department of Health Sciences, Centre for Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
* Corresponding author Email: margaret.maxwell@stir.ac.uk

Declared competing interests of authors: Andrew Elders reports a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme during the conduct of this study. Douglas Tincello and Karen Guerrero report grants from NIHR during the conduct of this study.

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document