UTI assessment tool for Intermittent Catheter users: INCLUDING user perspectives to improve the standard of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background : Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) are among the most severe complications for users of intermittent catheterisation (IC), with numerous risk factors contributing to their occurrence. The aim of this project was to develop a tool to assess UTI risk factors among IC users in a systematic way that considers the perspective of the individual user. Methods : The UTI Risk Factors model by Kennelly et al. was used as a basis for the development of this tool. Insights on the appropriate content and format were collected via the Coloplast Nurse Advisory Boards and by conducting a literature review on user perspectives and practices in relation to UTIs. These insights were subsequently utilised to develop an appropriate format via the Design Thinking Process. Results : The literature search identified a total of 3,544 articles, out of which 22 met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, three rounds of meetings were conducted with approximately 90 nurses from the Coloplast Advisory Boards across Europe. The literature review showed that users describe their UTI symptoms in different terms and that personal needs and priorities impact their adherence and catheter selection. Furthermore, some users lack relevant and updated knowledge about IC and UTIs. The nurses described that correct UTI diagnosis is essential. They pointed that they would assess the user’s general condition, adherence, technique, and catheter type as potential areas of risk factors and emphasised the importance of adequate support for users. The work resulted in the development of the UTI assessment tool for intermittent catheter users, which comprises three elements: a guide for healthcare professionals, a dialogue board, and a notepad. The tool starts with a confirmation of the UTI incidence, and then assesses risk factors via questions on health, adherence, technique, and catheter, and concludes with a support section. Conclusions : The UTI assessment tool for intermittent catheter users is designed to help healthcare professionals assess UTI risk factors in a systematic way, while engaging users and taking their perspective into account. By identifying the relevant risk factors, the use of this tool has the potential to reduce the occurrence of UTIs for the individual IC user.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".