ArticleBMJ open2025
Understanding the role of culture in shaping attitudes and beliefs on urinary incontinence: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUrinary 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 registrationOpen Science Framework https://osf.io/3d97f.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.