The prevalence of urinary incontinence in women in four European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, type and treatment behaviour of women with urinary incontinence in four European countries. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Data were collected using a postal survey which was sent to 29,500 community-dwelling women aged > or = 18 years in France, Germany, Spain and the UK. Subjects were asked about the type of urinary incontinence they had experienced and their treatment behaviour. RESULTS: Of the women who responded, 35% reported involuntary loss of urine in the preceding 30 days; stress urinary incontinence was the most prevalent type. The lowest prevalence was in Spain (23%), while the prevalence was 44%, 41% and 42% for France, Germany and the UK, respectively. About a quarter of women with urinary incontinence in Spain (24%) and the UK (25%) had consulted a doctor about it; in France (33%) and Germany (40%) the percentages were higher. Overall, <5% of the women had ever undergone surgery for their condition. While pads were used by half of the women, there were some differences among the countries. CONCLUSIONS: Millions of women in Europe have urinary incontinence; the consultation and treatment rates were low in the European countries included in this study.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".