講演情報
[P01-07]Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises, Pelvic Support Belt Use, and Lumbopelvic Pain: Preliminary Findings from a Questionnaire Pre-test in Japan and Brazil
*Dalcin Bertoldo Luiza1、Campani Bohn Jeanine2、松井 三明1、三浦 靖史1 (1. Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University、2. Faculty of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)
キーワード：
Pregnancy、Low Back Pain、Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises
This study was approved by the ethics committee in both countries. Electronic informed consent was obtained. Participation was voluntary. Participants could decline to participate or withdraw their consent without disadvantage. Study data were anonymized and did not include personal information from the participants.
Background/Purpose: Pregnancy-related urinary incontinence (UI) and lumbopelvic pain (LPP) are common conditions that may negatively affect maternal health and quality of life. Although pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) and lumbopelvic support belts are recommended as conservative management strategies for UI and LPP, respectively, little is known about their use and the clinical characteristics of LPP across different countries and populations. Before initiating a Japan–Brazil comparative study on the clinical characteristics and conservative management of UI and LPP, a pre-test of a newly developed study-specific questionnaire was conducted to assess questionnaire comprehension and identify items requiring refinement. This study aimed to explore preliminary differences in support belt use, PFME practice, and LPP-related responses between pregnant women from Japan and Brazil while assessing questionnaire feasibility.
Methods: A pretest of the study-specific questionnaire was conducted with 10 pregnant women (5 from Japan and 5 from Brazil). The study was approved by the ethics committees of both institutions, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. The questionnaire assessed support belt use, PFME, sources of PFME guidance, and LPP characteristics (presence, location, frequency, and pre-pregnancy history). Since the pre-test aimed to assess questionnaire comprehension and identify items requiring refinement, sociodemographic, clinical and obstetric data were not included. Responses were analyzed descriptively.
Results: Preliminary differences in support belt use and PFME practice were observed between countries. All Japanese participants reported use of support belts during pregnancy, whereas none of the Brazilian participants reported using one. In contrast, three Brazilian participants reported previous experience with PFME, compared with one Japanese participant. Differences were also observed in the sources of PFME guidance, with two Brazilian participants reporting receiving guidance from physiotherapists, while one Brazilian and the Japanese participant reported using online resources (the internet, mobile applications or social media). The presence of LPP during pregnancy was similarly reported by participants from both countries. However, two Japanese participants reported a history of LPP before pregnancy, while none of the Brazilian participants did. Pain location was similar between groups, with the lumbar region being the most commonly reported. Brazilian participants reported a higher frequency of pain episodes. Based on participant feedback about the questionnaire, minor modifications were incorporated into the final questionnaire.
Discussion: Although based on a small sample, the observed differences suggest that conservative management behaviors and LPP during pregnancy may vary between Brazil and Japan. The findings also indicated that the questionnaire was well understood by participants and captured clinically relevant information on the study variables. Overall, the findings support the questionnaire's feasibility and highlight patterns that warrant further investigation in the main comparative study.
Conclusion: The pre-test confirmed the feasibility of the study questionnaire and resulted in minor modifications before implementation in the main study. Despite the small sample size, preliminary differences in conservative management behaviors and LPP were observed between Japanese and Brazilian participants. The refined questionnaire will be implemented in the main study, along with validated measures of UI, physical activity, and LPP-related disability, as well as sociodemographic, clinical, and obstetric data.
Methods: A pretest of the study-specific questionnaire was conducted with 10 pregnant women (5 from Japan and 5 from Brazil). The study was approved by the ethics committees of both institutions, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. The questionnaire assessed support belt use, PFME, sources of PFME guidance, and LPP characteristics (presence, location, frequency, and pre-pregnancy history). Since the pre-test aimed to assess questionnaire comprehension and identify items requiring refinement, sociodemographic, clinical and obstetric data were not included. Responses were analyzed descriptively.
Results: Preliminary differences in support belt use and PFME practice were observed between countries. All Japanese participants reported use of support belts during pregnancy, whereas none of the Brazilian participants reported using one. In contrast, three Brazilian participants reported previous experience with PFME, compared with one Japanese participant. Differences were also observed in the sources of PFME guidance, with two Brazilian participants reporting receiving guidance from physiotherapists, while one Brazilian and the Japanese participant reported using online resources (the internet, mobile applications or social media). The presence of LPP during pregnancy was similarly reported by participants from both countries. However, two Japanese participants reported a history of LPP before pregnancy, while none of the Brazilian participants did. Pain location was similar between groups, with the lumbar region being the most commonly reported. Brazilian participants reported a higher frequency of pain episodes. Based on participant feedback about the questionnaire, minor modifications were incorporated into the final questionnaire.
Discussion: Although based on a small sample, the observed differences suggest that conservative management behaviors and LPP during pregnancy may vary between Brazil and Japan. The findings also indicated that the questionnaire was well understood by participants and captured clinically relevant information on the study variables. Overall, the findings support the questionnaire's feasibility and highlight patterns that warrant further investigation in the main comparative study.
Conclusion: The pre-test confirmed the feasibility of the study questionnaire and resulted in minor modifications before implementation in the main study. Despite the small sample size, preliminary differences in conservative management behaviors and LPP were observed between Japanese and Brazilian participants. The refined questionnaire will be implemented in the main study, along with validated measures of UI, physical activity, and LPP-related disability, as well as sociodemographic, clinical, and obstetric data.