UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN SHAPING ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ON URINARY INCONTINENCE: A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common condition among older adults with diverse consequences for health and well-being. Shame, stigma, and cultural perspectives can prevent treatment-seeking behaviour. There is a scarcity of literature that explores the role that culture, beyond stigma, plays in shaping attitudes to, beliefs about, and management practices of UI. This review investigates and describes what is known about the role of culture in shaping the attitudes and beliefs on UI to identify gaps in the literature and direct future research. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method for scoping reviews, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, EBSCOhost, and SCOPUS databases were searched, without any restriction on language and publication date. A full extraction was conducted of seventeen articles that met the inclusion criteria. Key themes revealed were the stress of managing UI and devout cleanliness for religious activities among Muslim women, a norm of secrecy/silence around UI for Latina women, the potent role of caste discrimination on pelvic health-seeking behaviours in parts of India, and the intersection of UI with cultural belief systems like Confucianism, which prioritize maintaining respectability, challenged by the taboo condition of UI. Although several studies emphasized the surface-level stigma of UI, there is a dearth of literature exploring culture and UI. Further research is needed to inform health promotion efforts regarding UI, which consider the severe emotional toll of UI stemming from the isolation it can create, segregating those that experience it from full participation in society.
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 | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".