Individual and Institutional Factors Associated With Urinary Incontinence Among Nursing Home Residents: A Multilevel Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: (1) To analyse individual and institutional-level factors associated with urinary incontinence in older adults living in nursing homes; (2) to estimate the prevalence of urinary, faecal and double incontinence in nursing home residents. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Residents aged 65+ living in 22 nursing homes in Catalonia (Spain) were included. Descriptive, bivariate, and multilevel analyses were performed. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 452 residents (75.9% female, mean age of 87.0 years). The prevalence of urinary, faecal and double incontinence was 77.5%, 46.1% and 45.7%, respectively. Urinary incontinence was statistically significantly associated with neurological conditions, moderate cognitive impairment, moderate dementia, severe cognitive impairment, very severe cognitive impairment and age. CONCLUSION: Approximately three out of four nursing home residents suffered from urinary incontinence and almost half of the sample from faecal or double incontinence. Individual-level factors (cognition, neurological conditions and age) played a more important role than institutional-level factors for urinary incontinence. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: The findings of this study highlight the importance of individual-level interventions to prevent and manage urinary incontinence in nursing homes. IMPACT: In Catalonian nursing homes, individual factors such as cognitive impairment and neurological conditions were more strongly associated with urinary incontinence than institutional factors. This has implications for improving care provided to older adults, particularly those with dementia and neurological conditions. REPORTING METHOD: STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Nursing home residents were not involved in this study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".