Assessment of Needs in Children Suffering From Refractory Non-neurogenic Urinary and Fecal Incontinence and Their Caregivers' Needs and Attitudes Toward Alternative Therapies (SNM, TENS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Non-neurogenic urinary and fecal incontinence (UI, FI) affects approximately 6% of North American children with 1% of cases becoming refractory (nonresponsive to standard therapies). Incontinence has major potential long-term physiological and psychological implications for patients and their families. While Sacral Neuromodulation (SNM) and Transcutaneous Nerve Stimulation (TENS) are alternative therapies available for the treatment of refractory UI/FI, these are not approved for use in children in Canada. The present study assessed participants’ perception of current treatments, incontinence burden, and attitudes towards novel therapies in a single pediatric institution. Methods: Multiple validated questionnaires including Dysfunctional Voiding Scoring System (DVSS), Bristol Stool Chart (BSC), Pediatric Incontinence measurement (PinQ), and Time-Driven Activity Based Costing were used to perform a needs assessment for patients with non-neurogenic refractory incontinence, and to determine patients’ and caregivers’ attitudes towards alternative therapies. Results: 75% of patients and 89% of caregivers reported a moderate to severe impact of incontinence on QoL with diminished social interactions among the primary concerns. Caregivers were frustrated with current treatments and were open to trying alternative therapies (SNM and TENS), which, at least in the case of SNM, seems to be less expensive, possibly less burdensome and more effective than current surgical options. Conclusion: Pediatric refractory UI/FI has a large impact on patients’ and caregivers’ QoL and alternative therapies with the potential to improve QoL of patients and caregivers should be further investigated as a substitute for surgery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".