Barriers and facilitators to changing bowel care practices after spinal cord injury: a Theoretical Domains Framework approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improvement to autonomic processes such as bladder, bowel and sexual function are prioritised by individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Bowel care is associated with high levels of dissatisfaction and decreased quality of life. Despite dissatisfaction, 71% of individuals have not changed their bowel care routine for at least 5 years, highlighting a disconnect between dissatisfaction with bowel care and changing routines to optimise bowel care. OBJECTIVE: Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, we aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to making changes to bowel care in individuals with SCI. METHODS: Our approach was guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel and used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals with SCI (n = 13, mean age 48.6 ± 13.1 years) and transcribed verbatim (duration 31.9 ± 7.1 min). Barriers and facilitators were extracted, deductively coded using TDF domains and inductively analysed for themes within domains. RESULTS: Changing bowel care after SCI was heavily influenced by four TDF domains: environmental context and resources (workplace flexibility, opportunity or circumstance, and access to resources); beliefs about consequences; social influences (perceived support and peer mentorship); and knowledge (knowledge of physiological processes and bowel care options). All intervention functions and policy categories were considered viable intervention options, with human (61%) and digital (33%) platforms preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Modifying bowel care is a multi-factorial behaviour. These findings will support the systematic development and implementation of future interventions to both enable individuals with SCI to change their bowel care and to facilitate the optimisation of bowel care approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".