Predictors and Incidence of Urinary Incontinence in Elderly Canadians With and Without Dementia — A Five-Year Follow Up: The Canadian Study of Health and Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Based on the national Canadian Study of Health and Aging, the objective of this study was to determine the importance of socio-demographic and medical factors, cognitive and functional status as predictors of the development of urinary incontinence, and to estimate five-year incidence by sex and age group. Participants from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging who underwent a clinical examination in 1992 and were continent for urine at the time were followed up and their continence status was again determined in 1997. Multivariate logistic regression models with daily incontinence and daily or less than daily incontinence as the outcomes were developed separately for male (n = 306) and female (n = 520) survivors. Predictor variables were introduced in the following chunks: socio-demographic factors; cognitive status; functional status, diabetes and stroke. Five-year cumulative incidence of daily and less than daily incontinence by sex and age group was also estimated. Results indicated that the incidence of urinary incontinence was higher in women than in men, and increased by age in both men and women. Especially among men, those in institutions were much more likely to develop urinary incontinence than those in the community. Incontinence increased dramatically with severity of dementia, less so with physical immobility. Diabetes mellitus was related to the development incontinence in men but not in women, prior stroke was related to development of incontinence in both sexes. It is concluded that urinary incontinence is common in older persons, and enquiries about its presence should be part of routine medical and nursing assessment of older persons. Those who develop incontinence commonly have dementia and are physically impaired. The extent of assessment and management should be carefully tailored to each individual patient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".