Peter Gariscsak, Gary Gray, Stephen Steele, D Elterman, R Christopher Doiron
{"title":"Urologist-perceived barriers and perspectives on the underuse of sacral neuromodulation for overactive bladder in Canada.","authors":"Peter Gariscsak, Gary Gray, Stephen Steele, D Elterman, R Christopher Doiron","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>An estimated 18% of Canadians have overactive bladder (OAB), with approximately 24% of those reporting difficulty adhering to pharmacotherapy. To date, there has been no investigation into barriers facing sacral neuromodulation (SNM) as treatment for OAB in Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Current Canadian Urological Association members were invited to participate in an anonymous survey. Data collected included open-ended and Likert scale responses addressing barriers to referral for SNM. Qualitative analysis used a Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), while quantitative responses are reported using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A response rate of 20.4% (n=142) was obtained. Most respondents believed SNM was underused (n=82, 57.7%) compared to only 6.3% (n=9) who believed it was used adequately. The most commonly cited reasons for not offering SNM were lack of availability (n=85, 59.9%), expertise (n=49, 34.5%), and funding (n=26, 18.3%). Participants were neutral regarding confidence to appropriately recommend SNM to patients (median 3, interquartile range [IQR] 2-4) and were not confident to manage patient care and issues related to SNM devices (median 2, IQR 1-3). On thematic analysis using the TDF, the most prevalent barriers to SNM care were related to infrastructure and resources. A lack of trained experts and lack of knowledge related to SNM use were also commonly identified barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this first study exploring urologist-perceived barriers to SNM referral for medically refractory OAB in Canada, urologists acknowledge that SNM implantation is underused but did not feel confident in recommending SNM appropriately. A lack of trained experts and poor funding were also identified as major barriers to SNM referral.</p>","PeriodicalId":9574,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada","volume":"17 6","pages":"E165-E171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10263295/pdf/cuaj-6-e165.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: An estimated 18% of Canadians have overactive bladder (OAB), with approximately 24% of those reporting difficulty adhering to pharmacotherapy. To date, there has been no investigation into barriers facing sacral neuromodulation (SNM) as treatment for OAB in Canada.
Methods: Current Canadian Urological Association members were invited to participate in an anonymous survey. Data collected included open-ended and Likert scale responses addressing barriers to referral for SNM. Qualitative analysis used a Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), while quantitative responses are reported using descriptive statistics.
Results: A response rate of 20.4% (n=142) was obtained. Most respondents believed SNM was underused (n=82, 57.7%) compared to only 6.3% (n=9) who believed it was used adequately. The most commonly cited reasons for not offering SNM were lack of availability (n=85, 59.9%), expertise (n=49, 34.5%), and funding (n=26, 18.3%). Participants were neutral regarding confidence to appropriately recommend SNM to patients (median 3, interquartile range [IQR] 2-4) and were not confident to manage patient care and issues related to SNM devices (median 2, IQR 1-3). On thematic analysis using the TDF, the most prevalent barriers to SNM care were related to infrastructure and resources. A lack of trained experts and lack of knowledge related to SNM use were also commonly identified barriers.
Conclusions: In this first study exploring urologist-perceived barriers to SNM referral for medically refractory OAB in Canada, urologists acknowledge that SNM implantation is underused but did not feel confident in recommending SNM appropriately. A lack of trained experts and poor funding were also identified as major barriers to SNM referral.