Towards the development of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale for
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current outcome measures for continence management devices do not adequately address psychosocial impact. The PIADS is an assessment tool that has been shown to reliably predict the adoption and use of assistive technology devices, but it is not widely used for continence devices. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the PIADS requires modification to address the particular needs of continence device users and to inform any subsequent item development. METHODS: The study used interpretive methods in which qualitative information from semi-structured interviews was combined with the findings from cognitive interviews for questionnaire pre-testing. A total of 40 participants in UK and Canada were interviewed. RESULTS: Few participants had difficulty in understanding or relating to the majority of PIADS items. Several items were not considered relevant to continence and some areas for potential new items were uncovered. Embarrassment and concealment of urinary incontinence from others were common topics. CONCLUSIONS: The PIADS appears to fundamentally address many, but not all, of the important psychosocial concerns of adults who have continence difficulties. A version for continence, the C-PIADS, will require modification of the PIADS and is likely to contain some new items.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".