A qualitative study of continence service provision for people living with dementia at home in the UK: Still inadequate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Incontinence is a major problem for people with dementia (PWD) and their family/friend caregivers, often causing substantial harm, including residential care admission. The incontinence needs of PWD are complex and different from those of people without dementia. The aim of this study was to investigate carer and nurse perceptions of continence service provision and potential improvements. METHODS: A secondary analysis of qualitative data was undertaken. Semi-structured interviews (n = 45) were undertaken with PWD, family caregivers and healthcare professionals (continence or dementia nurses) in the UK. PWD and caregivers were recruited via www.joindementiaresearch.nihr.ac.uk and via dementia/carer groups. Nurses were recruited via their employers. Framework analysis was used. The COREQ Research guideline statement assists reporting. RESULTS: Four themes were found. Firstly, there was a lack of awareness of the service and waiting time. Many caregivers were unaware of continence services and dementia nurses often viewed it as a pad provision service. Caregivers reported long waits not meeting their urgent needs. Secondly, product provision was often inadequate. Most caregivers self-purchased all or many products and substantial variation in product provision was found. The number of products provided was often inadequate. Thirdly, a sense that "nothing can be done" was observed by some nurses and caregivers. Caregivers believed that, if nothing else, care information should be provided. Finally, suggestions for improvements were made, including proactive service signposting, joint clinics with dementia services, improved information before crisis point, dementia training for continence nurses and improved product provision. CONCLUSION: Continence service inadequacies for PWD and caregivers have been reported for many years. This study demonstrates service provision remains unsatisfactory in the UK. Stakeholders propose a range of service improvements. It highlights that listening to the voices of PWD, caregivers and nurses is crucial for services seeking to improve continence services for PWD living at home.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".