Dataset Information

Clean Intermittent Self-Catheterization as a Treatment Modality for Urinary Retention: Perceptions of Urologists.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) is now considered the gold standard for the management of urinary retention. In the literature, several articles on patients' perspectives on CISC and adherence to this technique have been published. No studies have yet explored the points of view of professional caregivers, such as nurses and doctors. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of urologists about CISC and to evaluate the need for dedicated nurses specialized in CISC through a self-administered questionnaire.

Methods

A questionnaire was developed to explore the opinions of professional caregivers about self-catheterization and to evaluate the need to provide nurses with specialized education in CISC. Questionnaires were sent to 244 urologists through email. We received 101 completed questionnaires. The response rate was 41.4%.

Results

Hand function, the presence or absence of tremor, and visual acuity were rated as the most important determinants for proposing CISC to a patient. Twenty-five percent of the urologists reported that financial remuneration would give them a greater incentive to propose CISC. The lack of dedicated nurses was reported by half of the urologists as a factor preventing them from proposing CISC. A meaningful number of urologists thought that patients perceive CISC as invasive and unpleasant. Although most urologists would choose CISC as a treatment option for themselves, almost 1 urologist out of 5 would prefer a permanent catheter.

Conclusions

This questionnaire gave valuable insights into urologists' perceptions of CISC, and could serve as the basis for a subsequent broader international study. Further research should also focus on the opinions of nurses and other caregivers involved in incontinence management. Apart from financial remuneration, it is also clear that ensuring sufficient expertise and time for high-quality CISC care is important. This could be a potential role for dedicated nurses.

SUBMITTER: Weynants L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5636956 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:People with chronic urinary retention typically require intermittent catheterization. This review evaluates the effectiveness, safety, patient preference, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of different types of intermittent catheter (IC). Specifically, we compared prelubricated catheters (hydrophilic, gel reservoir) and noncoated catheters, as well as their single use versus reuse (multiple use). Methods:We performed a systematic literature search and included randomized controlled trials, cohort, and case-control studies that examined any type of single-use versus multiple-use IC, hydrophilic single-use versus noncoated single-use, or gel reservoir single-use versus noncoated single-use. The outcomes of interest were symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), hematuria, other serious adverse events, and patient satisfaction. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation, using the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, to determine the cost-effectiveness of various intermittent catheters used in Ontario. We determined the budget impact of fully and partially funding various intermittent catheters for outpatients with chronic urinary retention. To understand patient experiences with intermittent catheterization, we interviewed 34 adults and parents of children affected by chronic urinary retention. Results:We found 14 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. When comparing any type of single-use or multiple-use IC, we found no difference in UTI (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.70-1.39), hematuria, or serious adverse events, and inconclusive evidence on patient satisfaction.Our meta-analysis of studies on people living in the community showed that hydrophilic ICs may result in fewer UTIs than single-use noncoated ICs, but given the nature of the studies, we were uncertain about this conclusion.The nature of the available evidence also did not allow us to make definitive conclusions regarding whether one type of catheter was likely to result in less hematuria, fewer serious adverse events, or greater patient satisfaction.Our economic evaluation found that owing to small differences in quality-adjusted life-years and moderate to large incremental cost differences, the lowest-cost ICs-noncoated multiple-use (using one catheter per week or one catheter per day)-have the highest probability of being cost-effective. In a subpopulation of those clinically advised not to reuse ICs, single-use noncoated ICs have the highest probability of being cost-effective. As current funding is limited in the outpatient setting, publicly funding noncoated multiple-use catheters (one per day) would result in a total additional cost of $93 million over the first 5 years. People who use ICs reported that the high ongoing cost of purchasing catheters was a financial burden. Almost all said they would prefer not to reuse catheters sold as "single use" but could not afford to do so. Conclusions:Given the overall low quality of evidence in available studies, we are uncertain whether any specific type of IC (coated or noncoated, single- or multiple-use) significantly reduces symptomatic UTI, hematuria, or other serious adverse clinical events, or whether a specific type improves patient satisfaction. Therefore, the lowest-cost IC is likely the most cost-effective.

Project description:BackgroundWe developed a Urinary Symptom Questionnaire for individuals with neurogenic bladder due to spinal cord injury (SCI) and spina bifida (SB) who manage their bladders with intermittent catheterization, the USQNB-IC. This project followed an approach to patient-centered patient reported outcomes development that we created and published in 2017, specifically to ensure the primacy of the patient's perspective and experience.ParticipantsTwo sets of responses were collected from individuals with neurogenic bladder due to either SCI (n = 336) and SB (patients, n = 179; and caregivers of patients with NB, n = 66), and three sets of "controls", individuals with neurogenic bladder who do not have a history of UTIs (n = 49) individuals with chronic mobility impairments (neither SCI nor SB) and without neurogenic bladder (n = 46), and those with no mobility impairment, no neurogenic bladder, and no history of UTIs (n = 64).MethodData were collected from all respondents to estimate these psychometric or measurement domains characterizing a health related PRO: Reliability (minimization of measurement error; internal consistency or interrelatedness of the items; and maximization of variability that is due to "true" difference between levels of the symptoms across patients), and validity (content, reflection of the construct to be measured; face, recognizability of the contents as representing the construct to be measured; structural, the extent to which the instrument captures recognizable dimensions of the construct to be measured; and criterion, association with a gold standard).ResultsEvidence from these five groups of respondents suggest the instrument has face, content, criterion, convergent, and divergent validity, as well as reliability. The items were all more descriptive of our patient (focus) groups and were only weakly endorsed by the control groups.ConclusionsThe instrument is unique in its emphasis on, and origination from, the lived experiences of patients with neurogenic bladder who use intermittent catheterization; this preliminary psychometric evidence suggests the instrument could be useful for research and in the clinic. These results justify further development of the instrument, including formal exploration of the scoring and estimation of responsivity of these items to clinical interventions as well as patient-directed self care.

Project description:BackgroundPsychiatric disorders affect about 450 million individuals worldwide. A number of treatment modalities such as psychotropic medications, psychotherapy and electroconvulsive therapy can be used to treat these disorders. Attitudes of general public play a pivotal role in effective utilization of mental health services. We explored the perceptions of general public of Karachi, Pakistan regarding psychotherapy.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Karachi, Pakistan during July-August, 2008. A three-step sampling strategy and a structured questionnaire were employed to survey knowledge and perceptions of adult general public about psychotherapy. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression models were used to investigate any significant associations between baseline characteristics of the participants and their perceptions.ResultsThe study sample comprised of 985 individuals (536 males; 531 financially independent) with an average age of 36.7 years (SD 13.54 years) and 12.5 years (SD 3.09 years) of education were included. Majority (59.4%; n = 585) claimed to be aware of psychotherapy as a treatment option for psychiatric disorders but 47.5% of these (n = 278/585) failed to identify its correct definition. Concerns voiced by the participants about psychotherapy included stigma (48.7%) and breech in confidentiality (39.5%); 60.7% opined it cost effective and 86.5% favored its use as an adjuvant modality. A preference for psychotherapy as the treatment strategy for psychiatric disorders was demonstrated by 46.6% (n = 459/985). Younger, more educated, financially independent and female participants were more likely to prefer psychotherapy as were those who deemed it cost effective.ConclusionPositive attitudes regarding the acceptability, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy were observed in a sample representative of general public of Karachi, Pakistan. These findings highlight its potential utility for devising pragmatic mental health strategies in the face of limited resources.