A Multicenter Evaluation of Absorbent Products for Children With Incontinence and Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate all disposable pull-up-style pads (pull-ups) designed for children with learning and or physical disabilities and compare these with a representative sample of disposable diapers (diapers). DESIGN: A multicenter randomized crossover trial where all children evaluated each product. SETTING AND CHILDREN: A total of 61 community dwelling children with disabilities were recruited from 5 areas throughout the United Kingdom. Families were invited by letter to participate through their local clinical nurse specialist for continence care. INSTRUMENTS: Instruments used included a range of questionnaires (product performance, design performance, and design preference questionnaires) and pad weight and leakage diaries. METHODS: The children tested 10 products (5 pull-ups and 5 diapers) for up to 1 week per product both at home and at school. Caregivers (parents and guardians) completed the questionnaires after evaluation of individual products and design groups had been completed. They recorded wet product weights and scored pad leakage at each pad change. School staff completed an abbreviated product performance questionnaire for each product. RESULTS: There was little difference in the overall performance of the pull-ups compared with the diapers. In the pull-up group, one product performed significantly worse than the others for some performance aspects. Pull-ups worked particularly well for children able to assist with toileting and pad changes. Diapers were liked for ease of changing if the child used calipers, adapted footwear, or trousers. Diapers were more popular than pull-ups for night use, when greater absorbency was required. Neither design performed differently for school or home use. Most caregivers expressed a preference for diapers or pull-ups based on a range of individual needs, for example, level of independence in toileting, discreteness in pad change, fit, and product appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Diapers and pull-ups have different strengths and limitations, and both meet the specific needs of individual children. Although pull-ups are more expensive than diapers, their use is justified if based on a thorough assessment of individual need.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".