Exploring Vacuum Erection Device User Feedback: A GPT-4 Thematic Analysis

IF 2.1 3区医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY

Urology Pub Date : 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2025.03.027

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":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To explore consumer viewpoints regarding vacuum erection device (VED) use.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a qualitative analysis of 1500 <span><span>Amazon.com</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> 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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23415,"journal":{"name":"Urology","volume":"200 ","pages":"Pages 216-222"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009042952500281X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To explore consumer viewpoints regarding vacuum erection device (VED) use.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative analysis of 1500 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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

探索真空勃起装置用户反馈：一个GPT-4专题分析。

目的：探讨消费者对真空勃起装置（VED）使用的看法。方法：我们对亚马逊网站上21种最受欢迎的VED产品的1500条评论进行了定性分析。使用GPT-4分析评论，确定共同主题和次主题。对电动和手动ved进行了比较，并建立了多变量有序回归来确定与更高产品评级相关的因素。结果：最常见的主题是疗效（92%）和用户体验（78%）。安全性和警告分别出现在27%和6.8%的评论中。与手动版本相比，电动版本更频繁地与易用性（46%对34%）、设计功能（17%对9.3%）和明确的产品警告（7.7%对5.1%）联系在一起。与1/5评级相比，5/5评级与较少提及产品缺陷（7.3%对86%）、故障（1.5%对45%）、产品警告（2.8%对24%）和客户服务问题（3.9%对21%）相关。在所有评论中，126篇（8.4%）报告使用VED进行伴侣亲密行为，而16篇（1.1%）报告将其用于手淫。在这个队列中，65%的人使用带有性玩具的设备，35%的人使用标准的ved。寻求伴侣亲密关系的用户在有和没有性玩具功能的ved之间报告了相似的有效性（93%对81%），易用性（59%对54%），满意度（91%对95%）和推荐可能性（30%对29%）。结论：亚马逊上的评论对ved总体持积极态度，很少提到故障或安全警告。然而，适当的患者教育仍然是必不可少的，以确保安全使用和尽量减少伤害的风险。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

9.50%

发文量

716

审稿时长

59 days

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.