Assessment of Environmental, Sociocultural, and Physiological Influences on Women’s Toileting Decisions and Behaviors Using “Where I Go”: Pilot Study of a Mobile App
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known about women's decisions around toileting for urination and how those decisions influence moment-to-moment behaviors to manage bladder needs. The new smartphone app "Where I Go" captures such nuanced and granular data in real-world environments. Objective: This study aims to describe participant engagement with "Where I Go", variation in novel parameters collected, and readiness for the data collection tool's use in population-based studies. Methods: "Where I Go" has three components: (1) real-time data, (2) short look-back periods (3-4 h), and (3) event location (GPS recorded at each interaction). The sample size was 44 women. Recording of real-time toileting events and responding to look-back questions was measured over 2 days of data collection. The participant's self-entered location descriptions and the automatic GPS recordings were compared. Results: A total of 44 women with an average age of 44 (range 21-85) years interacted with the app. Real-time reporting of at least 1 toileting event per day was high (38/44, 86%, on day 1 and 40/44, 91%, on day 2) with a median of 5 (IQR 3-7 on day 1 and IQR 3-8 on day 2) toileting events recorded each day. Toileting most commonly occurred at home (85/140, 61%, on day 1 and 129/171, 75%, on day 2) due to a need to go (114/140, 66%, on day 1 and 153/171, 74%, on day 2). The most common reasons for delaying toileting were "work duties" (33/140, 21%, on day 1 and 21/171, 11%, on day 2) and "errands or traveling" (19/140, 12%, on day 1 and 19/171, 10%, on day 2). Response to at least 1 look-back notification was similarly high (41/44, 93%, on day 1 and 42/44, 95%, on day 2), with number of responses higher on average on day 2 compared with day 1 (mean on day 1=3.2, 95% CI 3.0-3.5; mean on day 2=4.3, 95% CI 3.9-4.7; P<.001). Median additional toileting events reported on the look-back survey were 1 (IQR 1-2) and 2 (IQR 1-2) on days 1 and 2, respectively. Overall concordance between self-reported location recording and GPS was 76% (188/247). Participants reported lower urge ratings when at home versus away when reporting real-time toileting (median rating 61, IQR 41-84 vs 72, IQR 56-98), and daily fluid intake showed a small to medium positive correlation with toileting frequency (day 1 r=0.3, day 2 r=0.24). Toileting frequency reported in "Where I Go" showed a small positive correlation with the frequency item from the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (r=0.31 with day 1 toileting frequency and r=0.21 with day 2 toileting frequency). Conclusions: "Where I Go" has potential to increase the understanding of factors that affect women's toileting decisions and long-term bladder health. We anticipate its use as a data collection tool in population-based studies.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".