Patient, Family, and Peer Engagement in Nursing Care as an Effort to Improve the Functional Independence of Post-stroke Urinary Incontinence Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The engagement of patients, family members, and peers is one approach that can be taken to improve the patient's health status. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between patient, family, and peer involvement in nursing care to improve the functional independence of post-stroke urinary incontinence (UI) patients. Methods This cross-sectional descriptive design study was conducted in three hospitals in Kota Kendari, Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia. A total of 104 patients were selected using a simple random sampling method. Data were collected during the research period through a survey and observation. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and the Mann-Whitney test. Results There was a statistically significant difference in the motor subscale of the Functional Independence Measure (motor-FIM) domain (p<0.05). Based on the results of the analysis, there was a relationship between each motor-FIM domain in the engagement group. Conclusions The involvement of patients, families, and peers in patient care needs to be comprehensively improved in an effort to increase patient independence, which in turn can improve the quality of life of post-stroke urinary incontinence patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".