Responsiveness and Clinical Utility of the Geriatric Self‐Efficacy Index for Urinary Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report on the responsiveness testing and clinical utility of the 12-item Geriatric Self-Efficacy Index for Urinary Incontinence (GSE-UI). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Six urinary incontinence (UI) outpatient clinics in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling incontinent adults aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: The abridged 12-item GSE-UI, measuring older adults' level of confidence for preventing urine loss, was administered to all new consecutive incontinent patients 1 week before their initial clinic visit, at baseline, and 3 months posttreatment. At follow-up, a positive rating of improvement in UI was ascertained from patients and their physicians using the Patient's and Clinician's Global Impression of Improvement scales, respectively. Responsiveness of the GSE-UI was calculated using Guyatt's change index. Its clinical utility was determined using receiver operating curves. RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 228 eligible patients (39.0%) participated (mean age 72.6+5.8, range 65-90). At 3-month follow-up, 22.5% of patients were very much better, and 41.6% were a little or much better. Guyatt's change index was 2.6 for patients who changed by a clinically meaningful amount and 1.5 for patients having experienced any level of improvement. An improvement of 14 points on the 12-item GSE-UI had a sensitivity of 75.1% and a specificity of 78.2% for detecting clinically meaningful changes in UI status. Mean GSE-UI scores varied according to improvement status (P<.001) and correlated with changes in quality-of-life scores (r=0.7, P<.001) and reductions in UI episodes (r=0.4, P=.004). CONCLUSION: The GSE-UI is responsive and clinically useful.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".