Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 14;3:893038. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2022.893038

Table 3.

Practice results by sex and degree of motor function.

Question Response Females
n (%)
Males
n (%)
miSCI
n (%)
mcSCI
n (%)
Did a healthcare professional ever discuss PFMT with you? Yes 29 (30.5) 13 (22.4) 40 (36.7) 2 (4.5)
No 56 (61.1) 45 (77.6) 61 (56.0) 42 (95.5)
Unsure 8 (8.4) 0 8 (7.3) 0
χ2 = 7.210, p = 0.027 χ2 = 22.295, p < 0.001
Have you tried to do a PFM contraction? Yes 68 (71.6) 26 (44.8) 74 (67.9) 20 (45.5)
No 26 (27.4) 26 (44.8) 31 (28.4) 21 (47.7)
Unsure 1 (1.1) 6 (10.3) 4 (3.7) 3 (6.8)
χ2 = 14.221, p < 0.001 χ2 = 6.678, p = 0.035
Have you participated in PFMT? Yes 23.2 13.8 27 (24.8) 3 (6.8)
No 73 (76.8) 48 (82.8) 80 (73.4) 41 (93.2)
Unsure 0 2 (3.4) 2 (1.8) 0
χ2 = 5.046, p = 0.080 χ2 = 7.512, p = 0.023
Do you think your PFMT was effective? (n = 30) Yes 15 (68.1) 7 (87.5) 22 (81.5) 0
No 1 (4.5) 0 0 1 (33.3)
Unsure 6 (27.3) 1 (12.5) 5 (18.5) 2 (66.7)
χ2 = 1.211, p = 0.546 χ2 = 14.127, p < 0.001

Comparison of Practice between sexes and motor-functions. The bolded statistics are significant. The bolded and italicized comparisons are significant.