Washable absorbent continence products, usability and acceptability: Project report from a three-country study in India, Papua New Guinea and Romania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Incontinence (the involuntary loss of urine or faeces) is a global health and social care challenge. For many of the hundreds of millions of people living with daily incontinence globally, treatment is not available or not effective (1). For these people, the reliable containment of urine or faeces that is involuntarily lost from the body is essential to health and quality of life. The most commonly used containment devices are absorbent products (either disposable or washable), but many people need to improvise, using items such as old clothing. Only around a quarter of people requiring continence products have access to them (2). At the moment, specifically designed washable absorbent products (WAPs) are not widely used and are not easily available in most settings despite being an effective option for many. To understand more about the use of WAPs and the potential for wide-scale adoption, this research study examined the perceptions of people receiving WAPs and local service providers on the usability and acceptability of washable products, in three countries: India, Papua New Guinea and Romania.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".