Urinary Incontinence in the 12-Month Postpartum Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief OBJECTIVE To describe the prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence in the 12-month postpartum period and to relate this incontinence to several potential risk factors including body mass index, smoking, oral contraceptives, breast-feeding, and pelvic floor muscle exercise. METHODS Participants were 523 women, aged 14 to 42 years, who had obstetrical deliveries. The women were interviewed in their rooms on postpartum day 2 or 3 and by telephone 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postpartum. Chart abstraction was conducted to obtain obstetrical data from the index delivery. RESULTS At 6 weeks postpartum, 11.36% of women reported some degree of urinary incontinence since the index delivery. Although the rate of incontinence did not change significantly over the postpartum year, frequency of accidents decreased over time. In the generalized estimating equation, postpartum incontinence was significantly associated with seven variables: baseline report of smoking (odds ratio [OR] 2.934; P = .002), incontinence during pregnancy (OR 2.002; P = .007), length of breast-feeding (OR 1.169; P = .023), vaginal delivery (OR 2.360; P = .002), use of forceps (OR 1.870; P = .024), and two time-varying covariates: frequency of urination (OR 1.123; P = < .001) and body mass index (OR 1.055; P = .005). Factors not associated with postpartum incontinence included age, race, education, episiotomy, number of vaginal deliveries, attendance at childbirth preparation classes, and performing pelvic floor muscle exercises during the postpartum period. CONCLUSION Postpartum incontinence is associated with several risk factors, some of which are potentially modifiable and others that can help target at-risk women for early intervention. Postpartum incontinence is associated with several risk factors, some of which are potentially modifiable and others that can help target at-risk women for early intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".