ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Factors contributing to long-term vaginal pessary use: A mixed-methods study.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Delayed Pessary Maintenance Appointments on Patient's Symptoms and Clinical Findings During the COVID-19 Pandemic.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Factors contributing to long-term vaginal pessary use: A mixed-methods study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOne of the treatment options in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is vaginal pessary therapy. For a well-informed decision, different aspects of the treatment option, including sustainable long-term outcomes, need to be discussed with the patient. However, long-term quality of life and psychological wellbeing of pessary use is unknown. This study explores the factors contributing to long-term pessary use.
methodsA mixed-methods study was performed among patients with vaginal pessary use for at least 5 years. The quantitative part consisted of online, validated questionnaires on satisfaction with care (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form [PSQ-18]), shared decision-making (Shared Decision Making Questionnaire [SDM-Q-9]) and decisional regret (Decision Regret Scale [DRS]). Health-related quality of life and pelvic floor complaints were measured by the Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. The qualitative part comprised semi-structured interviews according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) analyzed with grounded theory analysis.
resultsIn all, 35 patients filled in the questionnaires and seven were interviewed. Overall, patients indicated a good quality of life and satisfaction with the treatment. Three major themes were found in the interviews: effect of the treatment, contact with the healthcare provider, and choice in type of care. Four minor themes were psychosocial aspects, self-image, established habits, and sexuality.
conclusionWhen considering possible pessary use with a POP patient, these longterm effects of successful pessary treatment can be offered. The identified themes need to be addressed when applicable for the patient. Patients can be informed that long-term pessary use is feasible and can become a habit with little burden that relieves the complaints they experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.