Development of two electronic bladder diaries: A patient and healthcare professionals pilot study

Aims Assess patients' preferences in a pilot crossover study of two different electronic voiding diaries against a standard paper diary. Assess urological health professional (HP) opinions on the electronic bladder diary reporting system. Methods Two different electronic diaries were developed:...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Neurourology and urodynamics 2014-09, Vol.33 (7), p.1101-1109
Main Authors: Mangera, Altaf, Marzo, Alberto, Heron, Nicola, Fernando, Dayan, Hameed, Khawar, Soliman, Abdel-Hamid A., Bradley, Mike, Hosking, Ian, Abdel-Maguid, Mohamed, Levermore, Martin, Tindale, Wendy B., Chapple, Christopher
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cross-Over Studies
electronic bladder diary
Female
Health Personnel
Humans
Male
Medical Records
Middle Aged
Patient Compliance
Pilot Projects
Urinary Bladder - physiology
urinary continence management
urinary diary
Urination - physiology
voiding chart
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aims Assess patients' preferences in a pilot crossover study of two different electronic voiding diaries against a standard paper diary. Assess urological health professional (HP) opinions on the electronic bladder diary reporting system. Methods Two different electronic diaries were developed: (1) electronically read diary—a card with predefined slots read by a card reader and (2) e‐diary—a handheld touch screen device. Data uploaded from either electronic diary produced an electronic report. We recruited 22 patients split into two cohorts for each electronic diary, 11 completed each type of electronic diary for 3 days either preceded or followed by a standard paper diary for 3 days. Both diaries were completed on the 7th day. Patients' perceptions of both diaries were recorded using a standardized questionnaire. A HP study recruited 22 urologists who were given the paper diary and the electronic reports. Time taken for analysis was recorded along with accuracy and HP preferences. Results The majority of patients (82%) preferred the e‐diary and only 1/11 found it difficult to use. Patients had the same preference for the electronically read diary as the paper diary. The paper diary took 66% longer to analyze than the electronic report (P 
ISSN:0733-2467
1520-6777
DOI:10.1002/nau.22469