The experience of urinary incontinence in stroke survivors: A follow-up qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No previous qualitative exploration of urinary incontinence (UI) or post-stroke urinary incontinence (PSUI) has been undertaken in an Australian population. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of community-dwelling stroke survivors who were living with UI/PSUI and understand how context shaped those experiences. METHODS: A pragmatic approach using thematic analysis was employed for this study. FINDINGS: Four themes emerged from the data: "I've got to go": onset and daily experience of UI; "No one ever mentioned it": lack of advice and information from the health system; "You can't enjoy something if you've got to go the toilet": experience of occupational restrictions; and "It's just a matter of planning": management strategies. IMPLICATIONS: UI continued well beyond discharge and was shaped by limited advice, distress, and role loss. Occupational therapists are encouraged to engage in assessment, management, and treatment of UI, including the provision of education that promotes continence, attenuates negative experiences, and enhances community participation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".