Hiren V Patel, Behzad Abbasi, Kevin D Li, Marvin Carlisle, Anna Faris, William A Pace, Benjamin N Breyer
{"title":"Exploring Vacuum Erection Device User Feedback: A GPT-4 Thematic Analysis.","authors":"Hiren V Patel, Behzad Abbasi, Kevin D Li, Marvin Carlisle, Anna Faris, William A Pace, Benjamin N Breyer","doi":"10.1016/j.urology.2025.03.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore consumer viewpoints regarding vacuum erection device (VED) use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a qualitative analysis of 1,500 Amazon.com reviews for 21 of the most popular VED products. Reviews were analyzed using GPT-4, identifying common themes and subthemes. Electric and manual VEDs were compared, and a multivariable ordinal regression was built to identify factors linked to higher product ratings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most common themes identified were efficacy (92%) and user experience (78%). Safety and warning mentions appeared in 27% and 6.8% of reviews, respectively. Compared to manual, electric VEDs were more frequently associated with mentions of ease of use (46% vs. 34%), design features (17% vs. 9.3%), and explicit product warnings (7.7% vs. 5.1%). A 5/5 rating was linked to fewer mentions of product deficiency (7.3% vs. 86%), malfunction (1.5% vs. 45%), product warnings (2.8% vs. 24%), and customer service issues (3.9% vs. 21%) compared to a 1/5 rating. Among all reviews, 126 (8.4%) reported using the VED for partner intimacy, while 16 (1.1%) noted its use for masturbation. Within this cohort, 65% used devices with included sex toys, and 35% used standard VEDs. Users seeking partner intimacy reported similar effectiveness (93% vs. 81%), ease of use (59% vs. 54%), satisfaction (91% vs. 95%), and likelihood of recommendation (30% vs. 29%) between VEDs with and without sex toy features.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Amazon reviews indicate a generally positive sentiment toward VEDs, with few mentions of malfunction or safety warnings. However, proper patient education remains essential to ensure safe use and minimize the risk of injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":23415,"journal":{"name":"Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2025.03.027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of 1,500 Amazon.com reviews for 21 of the most popular VED products. Reviews were analyzed using GPT-4, identifying common themes and subthemes. Electric and manual VEDs were compared, and a multivariable ordinal regression was built to identify factors linked to higher product ratings.
Results: The most common themes identified were efficacy (92%) and user experience (78%). Safety and warning mentions appeared in 27% and 6.8% of reviews, respectively. Compared to manual, electric VEDs were more frequently associated with mentions of ease of use (46% vs. 34%), design features (17% vs. 9.3%), and explicit product warnings (7.7% vs. 5.1%). A 5/5 rating was linked to fewer mentions of product deficiency (7.3% vs. 86%), malfunction (1.5% vs. 45%), product warnings (2.8% vs. 24%), and customer service issues (3.9% vs. 21%) compared to a 1/5 rating. Among all reviews, 126 (8.4%) reported using the VED for partner intimacy, while 16 (1.1%) noted its use for masturbation. Within this cohort, 65% used devices with included sex toys, and 35% used standard VEDs. Users seeking partner intimacy reported similar effectiveness (93% vs. 81%), ease of use (59% vs. 54%), satisfaction (91% vs. 95%), and likelihood of recommendation (30% vs. 29%) between VEDs with and without sex toy features.
Conclusion: Amazon reviews indicate a generally positive sentiment toward VEDs, with few mentions of malfunction or safety warnings. However, proper patient education remains essential to ensure safe use and minimize the risk of injury.
期刊介绍：
Urology is a monthly, peer–reviewed journal primarily for urologists, residents, interns, nephrologists, and other specialists interested in urology
The mission of Urology®, the "Gold Journal," is to provide practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science information to physicians and researchers practicing the art of urology worldwide. Urology® publishes original articles relating to adult and pediatric clinical urology as well as to clinical and basic science research. Topics in Urology® include pediatrics, surgical oncology, radiology, pathology, erectile dysfunction, infertility, incontinence, transplantation, endourology, andrology, female urology, reconstructive surgery, and medical oncology, as well as relevant basic science issues. Special features include rapid communication of important timely issues, surgeon''s workshops, interesting case reports, surgical techniques, clinical and basic science review articles, guest editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, and historical articles in urology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
