Technology-assisted toilets: Improving independence and hygiene in stroke rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dependence on assistance for toileting is a widespread problem for persons receiving healthcare. Technology-assisted toilets, which hygienically wash and dry the perineal region, are devices that could improve toileting independence in a variety of patients. The objective was to investigate whether technology-assisted toilets improve toileting independence, quality of life, and whether technology-assisted toilets can provide sufficient toileting hygiene in stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: This pilot study was carried out in a stroke rehabilitation unit. Thirty participants were recruited. Participants had a bowel movement and cleaned themselves using the technology-assisted toilet on one to three occasions. Participants rated their toileting before using the technology-assisted toilet and after each technology-assisted toilet use with the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). After each session, participants were rated for cleanliness. RESULTS: PIADS scores were analyzed from eight individual participants, five of whom completed the full protocol. PIADS scores were significantly higher with the technology-assisted toilet than with the participants' regular toileting routine (p < 0.05). Technology-assisted toilets cleaned effectively in 73% of cases (16/22, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Technology-assisted toilets improved stroke patients' psychosocial outcomes compared to standard toileting and completely cleaned participants in the majority of cases. A larger study should confirm technology-assisted toilet's benefit in stroke rehabilitation through improved independence and hygiene.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".