Effect of a ‘centralized intensive education system’ for clean intermittent self‐catheterization in patients with voiding dysfunction who start catheterization for the first time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effects of a 'centralized intensive education system' (CIES) in terms of acquiring a proper clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) technique by patients with voiding dysfunction. METHODS: Between March 2002 and March 2003, we prospectively and consecutively enrolled 132 hospitalized patients who learnt and started CISC for the first time due to voiding dysfunction. Patients were enrolled either of two groups (the CIES group vs the 'individualized ward education system'[IWES] group) at the time of the urologic consultation for voiding dysfunction. Out of 132 patients who enrolled in the study, 112 (45 males and 67 females, mean age 57.3 with a range of 18-81) were included in the primary analyses. The questionnaire was applied immediately before discharge. RESULTS: There were similar patient demographics and clinical parameters for the CIES (n = 62) and the IWES groups (n = 50). Of 10 items including the methodology of CISC, six items discriminated significantly in favor of the CIES (P < 0.05). The patient satisfaction with CISC education was significantly different for the two groups in terms of response to the questionnaire. The CIES group was found to be more satisfied with the education received than the IWES group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the number of trials to gain confidence to perform CISC in CIES group was significantly fewer than that of IWES group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that CIES might be a superior training program for the patients with voiding dysfunction to acquire a proper CISC technique to the conventional IWES.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".