Assessment of neurogenic bowel dysfunction impact after spinal cord injury using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bowel function is frequently compromised after spinal cord injury (SCI). Regardless of this crucial importance in patients' lives, there is still scarce literature on the Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction (NBD) deleterious impact on SCI patient's lives and only few studies correlating NBD severity with quality of life (QoL). To our knowledge there are no studies assessing the impact of NBD on the context of ICF domains. AIM: To assess NBD after SCI using ICF domains and to assess its impact in QoL. DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis and cross-sectional phone survey. SETTING: Outpatient spinal cord injury setting. POPULATION: Portuguese adult spinal cord injury patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of demographic data, lesion characteristics and bowel management methods at last inpatient discharge. Cross-sectional phone survey assessing current bowel management methods, the Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score and a Likert Scale questionnaire about the impact on ICF domains and QoL. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients answered the questionnaire. The majority was male (65.6%), mean age 56.6±15.6 years, AIS A lesion (39.1%), with a traumatic cause (71.9%). The main bowel management methods were contact laxatives, suppositories and osmotic laxatives. 50.1% of patients scored moderate or severe NBD. Considering ICF domains, the greatest impact was in personal and environmental factors, with 39.1% reporting impact in financial costs, 45.3% in need of assistance, 45.3% in emotional health and 46.9% in loss of privacy. There was a significant association between severity of NBD and negative impact on QoL (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the major impact of NBD on personal and environmental factors of ICF and on the quality of life of SCI population. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: These findings confirm that it is relevant to identify the main ICF domains affected by NBD after SCI in order to address targeted interventions, working toward changes in health policies and psychosocial aspects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".