Experience of an Incontinence Clinic for Older Women: No Apparent Age Limit for Potential Physical and Psychological Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common but undertreated condition in older women. Although a variety of noninvasive interventions is available, older women may be hesitant to seek care for UI because of misconceptions about normal aging and treatment futility. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a UI clinic specifically tailored to the needs of older women to promote a sense of empowerment and to enhance satisfaction with treatment and outcome. We describe a case series of 52 women between the ages of 65 and 98 who were evaluated at the Geriatric Incontinence Clinic at the McGill University Health Centre over a 1-year period. A standardized telephone questionnaire was administered by a nurse consultant 6 months after each subject's final visit to assess patient satisfaction and current incontinence status. Forty-five women (86%) were available for telephone follow-up and completed the questionnaire. Mean age was 80 years, with urge incontinence in 45%, mixed incontinence (stress and urge) in 33%, impaired bladder emptying with urge symptoms in 10%, and other diagnoses in 12%. Overall, a mean reduction of 1.4 incontinent episodes per day was reported. At follow-up, 30% of the subjects reported being cured of their incontinence, 30% had improved, 20% were the same, and 20% were worse. Over 85% of all women reported satisfaction with their new incontinence status. Women of all ages, independent of the type of UI, type of treatment, and cognitive status, were able to achieve reductions in incontinence symptoms. All patients who had worsened were noncompliant with treatment recommendations at follow-up. Older women can derive significant benefit from a UI assessment. Neither advanced age nor category of incontinence precludes improvements or enhanced satisfaction with treatment. Efforts to improve targeting and compliance may improve outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".