A Community Perspective on Bowel Management and Quality of Life after Spinal Cord Injury: The Influence of Autonomic Dysreflexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomic dysfunction is common in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) and leads to numerous abnormalities, including profound cardiovascular and bowel dysfunction. In those with high-level lesions, bowel management is a common trigger for autonomic dysreflexia (AD; hypertension provoked by sensory stimuli below the injury level). Improving bowel care is integral for enhancing quality of life (QoL). We aimed to describe the relationships between bowel care, AD, and QoL in individuals with SCI. We performed an online community survey of individuals with SCI. Those with injury at or above T7 were considered at risk for AD. Responses were received from 287 individuals with SCI (injury levels C1-sacral and average duration of injury 17.1 ± 12.9 [standard deviation] years). Survey completion rate was 73% (n = 210). Bowel management was a problem for 78%: it interfered with personal relationships (60%) and prevented staying (62%) and working (41%) away from home. The normal bowel care duration was >60 min in 24% and most used digital rectal stimulation (59%); 33% reported bowel incontinence at least monthly. Of those at risk for AD (n = 163), 74% had AD symptoms during bowel care; 32% described palpitations. AD interfered with activities of daily living in 51%. Longer durations of bowel care (p < 0.001) and more severe AD (p = 0.04) were associated with lower QoL. Bowel management is a key concern for individuals with SCI and is commonly associated with symptoms of AD. Further studies should explore ways to manage bowel dysfunction, increase self-efficacy, and ameliorate the impact of AD to improve QoL.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".