Bladder and bowel preferences of patients at the end of life: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following patient preferences at the end of life should improve outcomes of care, yet patient preferences regarding bladder and bowel care are not often accommodated, as they are not well known in the literature. AIMS: This scoping review sought to identify bladder and bowel care preferences of patients at the end of life in published literature. METHODS: Papers published in or after 1997 (in English) that focused on adult preferences for bladder and bowel care at the end of life were included. FINDINGS: Scant literature exists on preferences for bladder and bowel care for adult patients at end of life. Further investigation is warranted to arrive at a better understanding of preferences regarding bladder and bowel symptom management. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore if prioritising the symptoms caused by incontinence, among the many symptoms experienced at the end of life, could be achieved through careful questioning and development of a standardised tool focused on improving patient care and incorporating patient preferences for care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".