Out-of-Office Digitalized and Connected Devices for Assessing Voiding Behavior: Patients' Point of View
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.
Conflicts of Interest
X.B. is orator for Boston Scientific, Hollister, Coloplast, Convatec, Ipsen, Abbvie and Wellspect, consultant for Medtronic and investigator for Boston Scientific, Hollister, Coloplast, Convatec, Ipsen, Abbvie. Other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
Deidentified data is available by direct query to the authors.
