Where Do Women With Urinary Incontinence Find Information About Absorbent Products and How Useful Do They Find It?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine from what sources women with urinary and dual urinary and fecal incontinence sought and received information about incontinence and absorbent products. We also evaluated source utility. DESIGN: Descriptive, embedded, mixed-methods study with qualitative interviews nested into a survey design in a modified explanatory sequence. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The target population was community-dwelling women in Canada who used containment products to manage urinary incontinence. Three hundred fifteen women completed the online survey, and 9 participated in interviews. METHOD: Quantitative data were collected using an online survey that was advertised in multiple locations, including continence and urogynecology clinics, non-for-profit health Web sites, and social media. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Using initial quantitative data results, a semistructured interview guide was designed to gain further insight. Local survey participants were invited to interviews at the end of the survey. Interview transcripts were coded using content analysis. The codes were then collapsed into categories and finally themes. RESULTS: The most common sources of information (n = 284/315) were retail outlets (43%) and television/radio (42%). The greatest percentages of "useful" or "very useful" resources were healthcare professionals (83%). Content analysis identified 5 themes: (1) using existing knowledge, (2) seeking knowledge, (3) finding the right pad, (4) being safe and secure, and (5) perceptions of healthcare professionals' roles. Product choice was made through trial and error; women drew information from a variety of sources, including product labels. Perceptions of helpfulness of experiences with healthcare professionals varied. CONCLUSION: Although women used multiple sources when selecting containment products, they did not receive information in a manner that suited their needs, resulting in a trial-and-error approach to product selection. Healthcare professionals should actively give information on containment products during their assessment of continence in patient encounters.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".