Nurses' Advice Regarding Sterile or Clean Urinary Drainage Bags for Individuals With a Long-term Indwelling Urinary Catheter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify, compare, and explore advice nurses give to community-dwelling long-term indwelling catheter users on the use of sterile or clean urinary drainage bags, and to obtain information that would inform the design of a larger-scale international survey. SUBJECTS AND SETTINGS: A survey was targeted to nurse members of the International Continence Society (n = 130). Respondents (n = 28; 21.5%) included nurses from Australia, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, who specialized in managing incontinence. METHODS: The project was conducted as a descriptive, exploratory pilot study. Respondents completed an online anonymous survey that was distributed by the International Continence Society. The survey instrument was designed by the investigators and comprised 14 questions with both fixed and open-ended response options. RESULTS: Most respondents in this survey advised indwelling catheter users to reuse their catheter bags (n = 15; 68%). Factors that influenced advice included concerns about the cost of catheter bags, an evaluation of the individual's infection risk, local and national policies, evidence-based guidelines, users' living arrangements, and their ability to clean the bags. Advice on decontamination methods varied; however, the most commonly recommended cleaning agent was water and vinegar, followed by a sterilizing or bleach solution or dishwashing detergent. CONCLUSION: Nurses play a key role in educating and supporting indwelling catheter users. Results of this study highlight variability in the advice nurses give to community-dwelling long-term indwelling catheter users about sterile or clean urinary drainage bags. This variability requires further investigation and affirms the need for a larger-scale study that draws on a broader sample of nurses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".