Neurogenic Bowel After Spinal Cord Injury From the Perspective of Support Providers: A Phenomenological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To gain greater insight into the experience of support providers who assist and support individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) for the performance of bowel care. DESIGN: Qualitative (phenomenological) interviews and analysis. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Ten support providers of individuals with SCI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Themes related to supporting bowel care for individuals with SCI. RESULTS: Support providers identified concerns and challenges as well as sources of satisfaction related to the provision of bowel care to individuals with SCI. Traits and characteristics of effective support providers also emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with SCI often require emotional, logistical, and/or physical assistance to complete bowel care. Exploration of neurogenic bowel care from the perspective of support providers identified concerns and challenges, sources of satisfaction, and important traits and characteristics of support providers. This information can facilitate the identification of effective support providers and the provision of enhanced training and support. Interventions of this nature can improve the experience for individuals with SCI and their supports.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".