Older Persons and Nursing Staff’s Perspectives on Continence Care in Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to understand continence care in geriatric rehabilitation from the perspectives of older persons and nursing staff. DESIGN: This is a qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: Ten patients and 10 nursing staff participated in semistructured interviews. Observations of care were recorded in field notes. Content analysis was used to develop themes of patient and nursing staff perspectives. FINDINGS: Three themes were developed: Perceptions of Assessment, Continence Management, and Rehab: The Repair Shop. Patients had limited insight into continence assessment and management by nursing staff. For older persons, incontinence was embarrassing and created dependence; independence in toileting meant gaining control. Staff viewed continence as an important part of rehabilitation nursing but focused on containment and regular toileting, with patients seeing absorbent pads as commonly suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Continence care approaches that engage older persons during rehabilitation are needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Restoration of continence through patient-centered care is core to older person rehabilitation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".