Exploring the Priorities of Older Adults in Managing Urinary Incontinence: a Patient-Oriented Research Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Urinary incontinence (UI), the complaint of involuntary leakage of urine, has a substantial impact on the quality of life of older adults. Most UI research is driven by researchers and lacks the patient perspective. The goal of this qualitative study was to gain the perspective of older adults in formulating a research agenda tailored to address their questions and improve their experience with managing UI. Methods: Implementing a community-based participatory research framework, an advisory group of eight older adults with UI were recruited to be on the research team. An initial focus group was conducted to learn about their research needs. Nominal Group Technique was used to reach saturation of themes and data was analyzed thematically. Employing a Delphi consensus method, a national online questionnaire containing 20 priorities for future UI research and education was developed in collaboration with the advisory group. Results: 59 older adults with UI rated each priority on a Likert scale. Priorities which advanced to the second round were re-rated, with an 85% response rate. 11 priorities of ≥80% agreement were retained. The highest rated priorities included relationship between physical activity and UI; support for those with UI; causes of UI and its management; sleep and UI; and public restroom accessibility. Conclusions: Findings from this study will help researchers and health-care professionals understand and address the needs of older adults with UI. Efforts should be made to translate research findings in this area and disseminate them in a medium accessible to older adults.
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 | 0.035 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".