Urinary Incontinence After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common and distressing problem after stroke. Although there is evidence of new, effective UI poststroke rehabilitation intervention, it is unknown whether occupational therapists (OTs)' and physical therapists (PTs)' actual practices reflect best practices. We sought to determine the extent to which OTs and PTs identify, assess, and treat UI after stroke and to identify personal and organizational predictors of UI problem identification, best-practice assessment, and intervention. METHODS: Six hundred sixty-three OTs (93% participation rate) and 656 PTs (87% participation rate) working in stroke rehabilitation in Canada were randomly selected and interviewed with a telephone-administered questionnaire. Each responded to a series of open-ended questions related to a generated case (vignette) of a typical client with stroke who was experiencing UI. RESULTS: Only 39% of OTs and 41% of PTs identified UI after stroke as a problem. Fewer than 20% of OTs and 15% of PTs used best-practice assessments, and only 2% of OTs and 3% of PTs used best-practice interventions. Working in Ontario, having allocated learning time, and doing university teaching were among the variables explaining between 6% and 9% of the variability in UI identification and assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian OTs and PTs do not routinely identify poststroke UI as a problem, and best-practice assessments and interventions are underused.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".