Intermittent catheterization difficulty questionnaire (ICDQ): A new tool for the evaluation of patient difficulties with clean intermittent self‐catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Once a catheterization technique has been learned and acquired, psychological barriers have been overcome and a specific catheter has been selected, a patient will need to use clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) on a long-term basis. Over this long period of time, several technical or anatomical difficulties and local complications may be observed. The aim of this study was to construct and validate a specific test, referred to as the ICDQ (intermittent catheterization difficulty questionnaire), in order to evaluate and quantify patients' difficulties during CISC. METHODS: The questionnaire was validated in neurogenic patients. Thirteen items were chosen, concerning ease of catheter insertion and withdrawal, the presence of pain, limb spasticity, urethral sphincter spasms, and local urethral bleeding during catheterization. The frequency and intensity of these difficulties were scored. The comprehension, relevance, psychological and time consumption acceptance and face validity were evaluated. Reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]) was carried out. RESULTS: The ICDQ was validated in 70 neurogenic patients (mean age 51.6 ± 13, 44 females, 26 males). Comprehension and acceptance of the questionnaire were good. Cronbach's alpha was α = 0.88. The ICC demonstrated good test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: The ICDQ is a valid test for the evaluation of catheter use, and of patients' difficulties during CISC. However, in order to facilitate CISC, we propose the interpretation of ICDQ results, drug combinations such as the use of alpha-blockers or botulinum toxin injections in the external urethral sphincter, or a change of catheter.
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".