Goal achievement as a patient‐generated outcome measure for stress urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore women's goals and goal attainment for the conservative and surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and to examine the feasibility of Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) as an outcome measure in this population. BACKGROUND: Despite the range of treatments for SUI, little is known about the outcomes patients consider important. Current instruments measure the impact of SUI on the ability to live a 'normal' life without addressing what normal looks like for the patient. Patient-generated measures that address what a patient aims to achieve may fill this gap. DESIGN: A mixed-methods exploratory design combined semi-structured interviews with validated questionnaires and individualized rating of goal achievement. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS: with SUI (n = 18) were interviewed in their homes prior to initiation of treatment and 3-6 months afterwards. MAIN VARIABLES: Participants reported individualized goals pre-treatment and rated goal attainment after surgical and conservative therapy. Quality of life impact and change were measured using short forms of the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and Urinary Distress Inventory. RESULTS: Women expressed a median of four highly individualized treatment-related goals but goal achievement following conservative treatment was poor. GAS was not feasible as an outcome measure; women readily identified personal goals but could not independently identify graded levels of attainment for each goal. CONCLUSIONS: Although further work is needed to examine the most feasible, valid, and reliable method of measuring goal achievement in research, asking patients with UI to identify pre-treatment goals may provide useful information to guide treatment-related decision making.
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".