Utilization of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
linical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evidence-based recommendations for best practice and have been developed with the assumption they will be embraced by practitioners; a further assumption is that clinical practice guidelines will improve the delivery of care. In this article, we provide a working definition of evidence-based practice, discuss the strengths and limitations of CPGs, describe the implementation of CPGs in the context of urinary incontinence, and consider the steps that the WOCN has taken to initiate evidence-based practice. Current issues are presented along with initiatives that have resulted in clinical practice guidelines on incontinence from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. On the basis of the current literature, it is concluded that clinical practice guidelines can play an important role in WOCN practice and that the implementation of guidelines may improve clinical practice. However, guidelines are only as valid as the evidence on which they are based and may not take into account gender or cultural differences or the effect that comorbid conditions can have on treatment outcomes. Finally, guidelines must follow a comprehensive approach that involves management and staff and includes education, facilitation, evaluation, feedback, and an understanding of change strategies.
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 | 0.112 | 0.390 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".