A qualitative study exploring the emotional responses of female patients learning to perform clean intermittent self‐catheterisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a study exploring the lived experiences and emotional responses of female patients learning to perform clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC). BACKGROUND: There is general consensus that CISC should be considered in preference to in-dwelling catheterisation wherever feasible. Published literature has tended to focus on quality of life issues and technical and physical aspects. There has been less investigation into patients' initial perceptions of CISC and into their subsequent experiences of learning the technique. DESIGN: This qualitative study used a phenomenological research design. METHOD: A series of semi-structured, in-depth interviews were held with a purposive sample of adult female patients performing CISC aged 34-64 years. Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using the 'Framework' method. RESULTS: This study identified six recurrent themes: grief and loss, lack of knowledge (regarding female anatomy, bladder dysfunction and catheters), negative associations and stigma, psychological aversion and embarrassment, nursing approaches and coping mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Loss of normal bladder function may represent a devastating event and trigger emotional responses associated with grief and loss. Patients may experience a range of reactions whilst learning CISC, including embarrassment and aversion, which may not dissipate over time. However, psychological distress is not inevitable and varies enormously between individuals. The nursing approach is vital, as individualised, empathic care is recognised and valued. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study adds to an emerging body of knowledge providing an enhanced understanding of the lived experiences of patients learning CISC. Nurses need to be alert to a range of potential emotional responses. This will facilitate the adoption of individualised teaching and learning strategies, designed to optimise the patient's assimilation of CISC into their lifestyle, promoting physical health, psychological wellbeing and independent living.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".