Out-of-Office Digitalized and Connected Devices for Assessing Voiding Behavior: Patients' Point of View.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Neurourology and Urodynamics Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-29 DOI:10.1002/nau.70100
Pierre-Luc Dequirez, Jessica Schiro, Anne Wojtanowski, Julien De Jonckheere, Xavier Biardeau
{"title":"Out-of-Office Digitalized and Connected Devices for Assessing Voiding Behavior: Patients' Point of View.","authors":"Pierre-Luc Dequirez, Jessica Schiro, Anne Wojtanowski, Julien De Jonckheere, Xavier Biardeau","doi":"10.1002/nau.70100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aim to question patients' a priori opinion on recently developed digitalized and connected bladder diaries and ambulatory uroflowmeters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients > 18 years old, presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and seen for a urology consultation at our center between May and December 2022, were proposed a standardized interview. An investigator explained the different types of devices and technologies (\"paper\" and \"digitalized bladder diary\", connected and non-connected \"home\" and \"portable uroflowmeter\", \"sono-uroflowmeter\" and \"video-uroflowmeter\") using a standardized presentation. Each device was then rated from 0 (very negative) to 5 (very positive) by patients for 5 subdomains: cumbersomeness, stigmatization, ease of use, confidentiality, and hygiene. Subgroup analyses including sex, age, activity, working conditions, presence of an underlying neurologic disease, and the type of LUTS, were carried out.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-seven patients participated in the study, including 51 female and 26 male patients. The highest median score was obtained by the \"sono-uroflowmetry\" (23/25) while the \"video-uroflowmetry\" got the lowest median score (9/25). When compared with \"paper\", the \"digitalized bladder diary\" was anticipated to be less cumbersome (p < 0.001) and was rated higher by patients < 50 years old (p = 0.011). When compared with \"portable\", \"home uroflowmeters\" were considered easier to use. The female sex was associated with a lower score for \"portable uroflowmeters\".</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most digitalized and connected bladder diaries and ambulatory uroflowmeters are viewed positively by patients, with a higher score for \"sono-uroflowmetry\". However, the anticipated preferences varied according to sex, age, and working conditions.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>This study was not a clinical trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":19200,"journal":{"name":"Neurourology and Urodynamics","volume":" ","pages":"1344-1350"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurourology and Urodynamics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.70100","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We aim to question patients' a priori opinion on recently developed digitalized and connected bladder diaries and ambulatory uroflowmeters.

Methods: All patients > 18 years old, presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and seen for a urology consultation at our center between May and December 2022, were proposed a standardized interview. An investigator explained the different types of devices and technologies ("paper" and "digitalized bladder diary", connected and non-connected "home" and "portable uroflowmeter", "sono-uroflowmeter" and "video-uroflowmeter") using a standardized presentation. Each device was then rated from 0 (very negative) to 5 (very positive) by patients for 5 subdomains: cumbersomeness, stigmatization, ease of use, confidentiality, and hygiene. Subgroup analyses including sex, age, activity, working conditions, presence of an underlying neurologic disease, and the type of LUTS, were carried out.

Results: Seventy-seven patients participated in the study, including 51 female and 26 male patients. The highest median score was obtained by the "sono-uroflowmetry" (23/25) while the "video-uroflowmetry" got the lowest median score (9/25). When compared with "paper", the "digitalized bladder diary" was anticipated to be less cumbersome (p < 0.001) and was rated higher by patients < 50 years old (p = 0.011). When compared with "portable", "home uroflowmeters" were considered easier to use. The female sex was associated with a lower score for "portable uroflowmeters".

Conclusion: Most digitalized and connected bladder diaries and ambulatory uroflowmeters are viewed positively by patients, with a higher score for "sono-uroflowmetry". However, the anticipated preferences varied according to sex, age, and working conditions.

Clinical trial registration: This study was not a clinical trial.

评估排尿行为的室外数字化和连接设备:患者的观点。
目的:我们的目的是质疑患者对最近发展的数字化和联网膀胱日记和流动尿流量计的先验看法。方法:所有在2022年5月至12月期间到我中心就诊的、年龄在bb0 ~ 18岁、出现下尿路症状(LUTS)的患者进行标准化访谈。一名调查员使用标准化的演示解释了不同类型的设备和技术(“纸质”和“数字化膀胱日记”,连接和非连接的“家庭”和“便携式尿流量计”,“声波尿流量计”和“视频尿流量计”)。然后,患者将每个设备从0(非常负面)到5(非常正面)的5个子域进行评分:繁琐,污名化,易用性,保密性和卫生。进行亚组分析,包括性别、年龄、活动、工作条件、是否存在潜在神经系统疾病和LUTS类型。结果:共77例患者参与研究,其中女性51例,男性26例。“超声尿流仪”的中位评分最高(23/25),“视频尿流仪”的中位评分最低(9/25)。与“纸质”相比,“数字化膀胱日记”被认为不那么麻烦(p结论:大多数数字化和联网膀胱日记和流动尿流仪被患者积极看待,“超声尿流仪”得分更高。然而,预期的偏好因性别、年龄和工作条件而异。临床试验注册:本研究不是临床试验。
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
Neurourology and Urodynamics
Neurourology and Urodynamics 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
231
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurourology and Urodynamics welcomes original scientific contributions from all parts of the world on topics related to urinary tract function, urinary and fecal continence and pelvic floor function.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信