An epidemiological survey of constipation in Canada: definitions, rates, demographics, and predictors of health care seeking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of functional constipation is highly variable among epidemiological surveys and may relate to the definitions applied. We estimated the population prevalence of self-reported, Rome I-defined, and Rome II-defined constipation in Canada and determined the variables that best predicted health care seeking. METHODS: A research firm was employed to conduct a random digit dial national survey, inviting household members at least 18 yr of age to participate in a study assessing personal health issues. The sample was stratified to ensure that each region of Canada was represented. Data collection involved three stages: 1) recruitment of participants by phone, 2) mailing of the questionnaire, and 3) data retrieval through a follow-up phone call. The Rome II questionnaire was used to derive the prevalence of functional constipation using both Rome I and Rome II criteria. RESULTS: Of the 1149 participants, 27.2% self-reported constipation within the past 3 months, and 16.7% and 14.9% had functional constipation according to Rome I and II, criteria, respectively. For all three definitions, the rate for women was close to twice that for men. Approximately 34% of those with self-reported constipation had visited a physician for it, versus 26.3% of Rome II subjects. In a regression model, subjects self-reporting in the past 3 months were more likely to have seen a doctor for their constipation (odds ratio 2.47, p < 0.01) and significantly more women than men (35.6% vs 19.5%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Functional constipation and related health care seeking are common in the Canadian population and are strongly determined by the definition used. The Rome II criteria for this disorder seem to be satisfactory, but modifications may be considered to allow for constipated subjects taking laxatives and to increase the number of qualifying symptoms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".