Aims: To investigate the intrarater reliability of visual inspection and digital palpation to classify women's ability to perform a voluntary pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contraction and the association between the two methods. Methods: This was a test-retest clinical study including 44 women. The ability to perform a PFM voluntary contraction was evaluated two times in all participants using visual inspection and digital palpation. All analyzed participants were assessed with a 7-day interval between the two assessments and by the same examiner. Kappa's agreement coefficient was used to estimate the intrarater reliability, and Fisher's exact test was used to analyze association between the two methods. Results: This study found a substantial intrarater reliability of visual inspection (k = 0.73; p < .001) and digital palpation (k = 0.74; p < .001). A significant association between visual inspection and digital palpation was found at both time points (p < .001). Conclusion: Both visual inspection and digital palpation have substantial intrarater reliability and visual inspection can be recommended when vaginal palpation is not tolerated.

Background Women’s adherence is essential to physiotherapeutic treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction, but its related factors are not usually considered in the development of treatment approaches. This study aims to understand how women with pelvic floor dysfunction experience pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological treatment options. Methods A systematic review of qualitative studies. The electronic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Lilacs, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases. Primary articles on qualitative methods focused on the experience of women regarding pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological interventions, i.e., pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), either associated or not with biofeedback, perineal massage, vaginal dilators, and others. A meta-aggregation was performed. Results It was included 22 manuscripts in this review. It was found seven studies about the use of vaginal devices, two about manual intervention and 14 studies on women’s experience with PFMT. The findings were synthesized as follows: I) women’s experience of manual interventions; II) women’s experience using vaginal devices changes according to health professional attitudes; III) women’s experiences using vaginal devices varied depending on their pelvic floor dysfunction; IV) reported side effects due to the use of vaginal devices; V) external factors influencing PFMT performance; VI) women’s perception of their own personal factors influencing PFMT performance; VII) PFMT characteristics influencing women’s adherence; VIII) strategies used by women to include PFMT in their routine. Conclusion Women’s experience with pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological treatment options is a complex phenomenon that involves many more variables than simply personal aspects. This is a systematic review of qualitative studies registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42018080244).