MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752851779 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2017.1358303

Can technology-assisted toilets improve hygiene and independence in geriatric rehabilitation? A cohort study

2017· article· en· W2752851779 on OpenAlexaff
David Yachnin, Hillel M. Finestone, Ami AC. Chin, Jeffrey W. Jutai

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToiletingRehabilitationToiletHygieneMedicineCompetence (human resources)Physical therapyPsychosocialNursingActivities of daily livingPsychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate whether technology-assisted toilets (TATs) could be used to improve toileting hygiene and independence for geriatric rehabilitation patients. TATs are commercially available toilet seats that use a stream of warm water to clean the user, have a fan for drying and are operated by a remote control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five geriatric rehabilitation in-patients were recruited, six completed the study, and seven partially completed the study. Each participant had two trial bowel movements. One trial involved cleaning themselves with toilet paper; the other involved cleaning themselves with the TAT functions. After each trial, participants received a visual inspection for cleanliness and answered the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS), a validated scale, to assess their sense of competence, adaptability and self-esteem in the bathroom. A toileting cleanliness scale, designed for this study, was completed by a nurse after TAT usage. Participants received a score from 1 (completely clean) to 4 (completely soiled) based on a visual inspection after cleaning. RESULTS: TAT and toileting cleanliness scores were similar. PIADS scores showed a trend towards higher scores when using the TAT, but results were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: TATs cleaned as well as standard toileting in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. Participants indicated that TATs improved their sense of competence, adaptability and self-esteem. Geriatricians and rehabilitation professionals should consider prescribing TATs in their practice as an assistive device in order to promote patient independence and dignity and reduce the burden of care for patients requiring toileting assistance. Implications for rehabilitation Technology-assisted toilets (TATs) are commercially-available toilet seats that could be used to allow rehabilitation patients to clean themselves more independently in the bathroom. Improved toileting independence can reduce burden of care of geriatric rehabilitation and reduce the impact of toileting assistance on patient dignity and self-esteem. Physiatrists should consider recommending TATs to their patients but should take into account whether a patient's particular set of disabilities will allow them to use a TAT effectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207