Understanding the role of culture in shaping attitudes and beliefs on urinary incontinence: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common condition among older adults with adverse consequences to health and well-being. Shame, stigma and cultural perspectives can prevent treatment-seeking behaviour. Although there is an abundance of studies in the health research literature that explore the physiological basis of UI, there is limited evidence on the role culture plays in shaping knowledge of, attitudes to and beliefs about UI. This review aims to answer 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. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Joanna Briggs Institute method for scoping reviews will be used to conduct the review, in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EBSCOhost, Scopus databases and WHO Index Medicus databases will be searched, without any restriction on language and publication date, enhancing the comprehensiveness and inclusivity of the review. A preliminary search of MEDLINE was conducted (09 February 2024) to identify articles. The screening and analysis of the search results from the databases will be managed using Covidence software. Two authors will screen articles, with a third involved as needed to resolve any differences. Findings will be organised using tables and key themes will be identified. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics approval is not required for this review as it does not involve any human or animal participants. Findings will be disseminated in a high-impact peer-reviewed journal with a focus on open-access publication at conferences and used to inform studies on the development of culturally sensitive management programmes for UI with the full involvement of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/3d97f.
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 | 0.091 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.018 |
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".