The Effects of Education About Urinary Incontinence on Nurses' and Nursing Assistants' Knowledge, Attitudes, Continence Care Practices, and Patient Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this systematic review were to describe, critique, and summarize research about the effects of education about urinary incontinence on nurses' and nursing assistants' knowledge and attitudes toward urinary incontinence, their continence care practices, and patient outcomes. We searched key electronic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) for full-text primary research articles written in the English language and published between January 1990 and October 2018. Studies were included if they described a controlled or uncontrolled trial of an education program for nurses or nursing assistants about urinary incontinence and evaluated the effects of the program on either knowledge, attitudes, practice, or patient outcomes. Data were extracted about the aim, design, sample and setting, trial methods, intervention, outcomes of interest, and findings. Quality appraisal was conducted using a mixed-methods appraisal tool. Results are presented in tabular format and reported descriptively. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria; most were set in the United States or the UK. All trials that evaluated the effects on knowledge reported improvements; however, the effects of education on attitudes were mixed as were the effects of education on continence care practices. Eleven of the 19 studies reported the statistical effect of education on patient outcomes. Uncontrolled trials reported improvements in nursing home residents' and community-dwelling patients' continence status, but this effect was not observed in a large controlled trial. Similarly, 2 studies set in inpatient rehabilitation found no significant differences in patient continence outcomes following an educational intervention targeted to nurses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".