‘What does that mean?’: a qualitative exploration of the primary and secondary clinical care experiences of young people with continence problems in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the clinical care experiences of young people with continence problems. DESIGN: In-depth semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted by Skype and telephone, with the addition of art-based participatory research techniques. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. SETTING: Primary and secondary care in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 20 participants (9 females, 11 males) aged 11-20 years. There were six participants with bedwetting alone, five with daytime wetting alone, five with combined (day and night) wetting and four with soiling. RESULTS: We identified four themes: appointment experiences, treatment experiences, engagement with treatment and internalisation and externalisation of the continence problem. Patient-focused appointments using age-appropriate language were highly desirable. Continuity of care was highlighted as an important aspect of positive clinical experiences; however, this was found to be rare with many participants seeing a different person on each visit. Participants had tried a wide range of treatments for their continence problems with varying degrees of success. Relapse and treatment failure were common. Experiencing relapse was distressing and diminished participants' belief in the success of future treatments and undermined adherence. Participants would be seen to adopt two opposing coping strategies for dealing with their continence problem- internalisation and externalisation. CONCLUSION: Incontinence in young people is challenging to manage. Young people may need to try a range of treatments before their symptoms improve. Due to challenges in treatment, there is an increased risk of poor adherence. During patient-focused appointments, clinicians should work to build rapport with patients and use age-appropriate language. Involving young people in their own care decisions is important. The way in which young people understand their continence problem can influence their coping strategies and adherence to treatment regimes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".