Translating Patient-Professional Divergence into Care-Improvement Priorities in Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation: A...

Background/Objectives: Pelvic floor dysfunctions (PFDs) are highly prevalent chronic conditions associated with substantial functional and psychosocial burden. Although multidisciplinary pelvic floor rehabilitation is recommended as first-line management, its effectiveness depends not only on intervention efficacy but also on care delivery, communication, patient engagement, and long-term adherence. This study applied the Delphi-Dialogue Patients-Professionals (DDPP) framework to quantify patient-professional alignment and translate identified patient-professional perceptual differences into candidate service-improvement strategies. Methods: A two-phase observational study incorporating parallel stakeholder surveys and a modified Real-Time Delphi feasibility-assessment process was conducted under the auspices of the Spanish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (SERMEF). In Phase 1, parallel online questionnaires were completed by 225 patients with PFD and 164 rehabilitation professionals. Shared items were rated on a six-point Likert scale, and patient-professional divergence was quantified using an operational composite index integrating standardized differences in mean ratings and high-agreement responses. In Phase 2, the implementation feasibility of 10 improvement recommendations was evaluated by a Delphi panel comprising 35 PM&R physicians and two representatives of the Spanish Incontinence Association (ASIA). Results: Patient-professional agreement was domain-specific. The greatest divergences concerned digital competence, timing of patient education, bladder and bowel diary use, and adherence to prescribed rehabilitation programmes. Professionals attributed greater value to bladder and bowel diaries and selected group-based interventions, whereas patients reported higher digital competence, more timely information delivery, and better adherence. Comparatively similar response patterns were observed regarding hybrid rehabilitation models, educational resources, app-supported follow-up, and overall satisfaction with rehabilitation care. The Delphi process identified structured home exercise programmes, adherence-monitoring strategies, and improved visibility of rehabilitation pathways as the recommendations with the highest perceived implementation feasibility. Conclusions: The findings suggest that important challenges in pelvic floor rehabilitation may arise from implementation-related factors in addition to the effectiveness of available interventions. The DDPP framework provides a structured, stakeholder-informed methodology for translating patient-professional divergence into candidate organizational recommendations with comparatively higher perceived implementation feasibility.