Lessons learned: Impact of a continence promotion activity for older community‐dwelling women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Few studies have documented the effectiveness of continence promotion programs targeting older incontinent women. We sought to evaluate the impact of an interactive continence workshop on changing participants' attitudes, knowledge and skills in relation to self-managing or seeking care for incontinence. METHODS: A quasi-experimental prospective cohort study with repeated measures was carried out on a population of 90 incontinent women aged 55-87 participating in a continence promotion workshop. Inclusion criteria were a weekly average of one or more episodes of involuntary urine loss during the preceding 3 months and having never sought help for this problem. Incontinence-related knowledge, attitudes, skills and intentions for seeking care were assessed immediately prior and subsequent to the workshop. Three- and 6-month telephone follow-ups were conducted to determine rates of healthcare seeking and reasons for not seeking care. RESULTS: Improvements in incontinence-related knowledge and attitudes occurred in up to 94% participants. Forty-three percent of the study participants initiated and were satisfied with self-treatment, and an additional 42% consulted a health care professional. CONCLUSION: Interactive continence workshops promote self-management and consultation seeking among older women with incontinence. Further testing of different strategies for promoting continence awareness needs to occur in larger studies with more sensitive instruments, a control group, and better specification of the goals, process and outcomes of the health promotion activity being tested.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".