Bladder management experiences among people living with neurologic disease: A systematic review and meta‐synthesis of qualitative research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To systematically review the qualitative literature on neurogenic bladder management to better understand the relevant psychosocial issues. METHODS: We used two reviewers to systematically review EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for qualitative studies that included a neurogenic bladder patient population and were relevant to bladder management. We used a meta-ethnography technique to summarize and synthesize the data. RESULTS: We found 13 studies that were relevant. When choosing a bladder management technique (three studies), there were two major themes (bladder management decision makers, and characteristics and risks) that impacted the process. For studies evaluating life with a urinary catheter (five about intermittent catheters, and five about indwelling catheters), relevant themes could be arranged into three consecutive periods: First, a changed life (the initial stage of selecting and using a catheter: coping, teaching and technical challenges, and control and independence). Second, learning to live with a catheter (the practical skill and knowledge that goes into using a catheter: knowledge, adjustments, and normalization). Third, a new life (the acceptance and integration of a catheter into a person's life: problems and benefits, unpredictability, travel and social activities, intimacy and relationships, and dealing with negative emotions). Themes were generally consistent across studies. Conclusions Several important themes were identified from the existing qualitative literature; these can provide insight into how neurogenic bladder patients select a bladder management method, and how physicians can optimize their counseling and the long-term management of these patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".