Urinary incontinence in Canada. National survey of family physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine current knowledge, attitudes, and management of urinary incontinence among family physicians in Canada. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: Family physicians in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 1500 members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-assessed knowledge, self-reported attitudes, and rating of various tests and treatments in the investigation and management of incontinence. RESULTS: The overall unadjusted response rate was 43.3% (650/1500). Although most respondents reported that urinary incontinence was common in their practices, less than half (46.0%, 284/617) indicated that they clearly understood incontinence and just 37.9% (232/612) had an organized plan for incontinence problems. Only 35.0% (214/612) of respondents felt very comfortable dealing with incontinence. Physical examination, urodynamic studies, urinalysis, and testing blood sugar levels were all considered important investigations by more than 90% of respondents. CONCLUSION: There are wide variations in knowledge, attitudes, practices, and comfort level among family physicians dealing with urinary incontinence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".