Developing a continence care centre using an urban/academic model of continence care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper describes the process of adopting the Canadian Continence Foundation's urban/academic model of continence care in the development of British Columbia's Bladder Care Centre, using a process that can serve as a model for other jurisdictions across Canada and internationally. METHOD: A multidisciplinary Working Group assessed the existing system, analyzed local and national statistics, and reviewed the literature on urinary incontinence and models of health care. Following approval from university and hospital authorities, continence services were reorganized including changing infrastructure, altering the location of multidisciplinary services and restructuring of funding and resource allocation. The process was overseen by a steering committee. RESULTS: The plan for the Bladder Care Centre involves diagnostic services and tertiary care coordinated with translational research in voiding dysfunction. Affiliations to university programs and teaching hospitals enable comprehensive interdisciplinary health professional education, training and research, which are distinguishing features of the Canadian Continence Foundation urban academic model. CONCLUSION: From the planning perspective, the Canadian Continence Foundation's urban/academic model of continence care was feasible to implement but required significant changes to hospital budgets and infrastructure related to the existing health care system. Program evaluation markers built into the plan will allow future reporting on whether actual improvements can be achieved, and the degree to which the plan can deliver cost savings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".