Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40194879›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2025

Patient and healthcare professionals' perception of weekly prophylactic catheter washout in adults living with long-term catheters: qualitative study of the CATHETER II trial.

Sheela Tripathee, Mohamed Abdel-Fattah, Diana Johnson, Lynda Constable, Seonaidh Cotton, David Cooper, Graeme MacLennan, Suzanne Evans, Amanda Young, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos and 14 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Sheela TripatheeAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK sheela.tripathee@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1280-1406
Mohamed Abdel-FattahAberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute for Applied Health Sciences, 2nd Floor, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Foresterhill, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Diana JohnsonCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0479-1228
Lynda ConstableCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9646-3904
Seonaidh CottonCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences, Aberdeen, UK.
David CooperHealth Services Research Unit, Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-4399
Graeme MacLennanCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, Health Sciences Building Foresterhill, University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1039-5646
Suzanne EvansBladder Health UK, Birmingham, UK.
Amanda YoungQueen's Nursing Institute, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-9427-4697
Konstantinos DimitropoulosDepartment of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Hashim HashimBristol Urology Institute, North Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, UK.
Mary KilonzoHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3450-4536
James Hugh LarcombeNHS Durham Dales Easington and Sedgefield CCG, Sedgefield, County Durham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3111-7346
Paul LittleUniversity of Southampton, Medical School, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3664-1873
Peter MurchieAcademic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9968-5991
Phyo Kyaw MyintInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3852-6158
James NDowDepartment of Surgery, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Catherine PatersonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1249-6782
Karen PowellBladder Health UK, Birmingham, UK.
Graham ScotlandObstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Nikesh ThiruchelvamCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
John NorrieEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit (ECTU), Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9823-9252
Muhammad Imran OmarAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1597-3126
Sara J MaclennanAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore trial participants' experience of long-term catheters (LTC), the acceptability of washout policies, their experience of the CATHETER II trial (a randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters) and their satisfaction with the outcomes. The objectives of the healthcare professionals (HCPs) focus group and interview were to explore their attitudes towards weekly prophylactic catheter washout, views on the provision of training and participants' ability to enact washout behaviours. METHODOLOGY: A longitudinal qualitative study embedded within the CATHETER II randomised controlled trial, which included semi-structured interviews and focus groups with participants from multiple trial sites. Data were analysed using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability and Theoretical Domains Framework. This UK community-based study included 50 (24 female, 26 male) CATHETER II trial participants, aged between 23 and 100 years, with LTC and able to self-manage the washout and study documentation either independently or with the help of a carer. Seven HCPs (five female, two male) also participated.

resultsThe participants had positive attitudes towards weekly prophylactic saline or acidic catheter washouts and other trial elements, such as washout training, catheter calendar and monthly phone calls. Participants and HCPs found the 'ask' of the CATHETER II trial and the weekly self-administered prophylactic washout policies to be feasible. The participants reported that the catheter washout training provided during the trial enhanced their self-efficacy, skills and self-reported capability to carry out the washouts. Participants reported having positive outcomes from the weekly washout. These included reduced blockage, pain or infection, reduced need for HCP support and greater psychological reassurance. HCPs attested to the participants' understanding of and adherence to the weekly washouts and other elements of the trial.

conclusionsThis study shows acceptability, feasibility and self-reported fidelity of the CATHETER II trial on a behavioural level. Self-management for prophylactic catheter washouts is both feasible and, following training, achievable without any need for additional support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17116445.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCatheter-Related InfectionsCatheters, IndwellingHealth PersonnelAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomYoung Adultclinical trialhealth servicesqualitative researchself-managementurinary incontinencesurology

Identifiers

PMID40194879
PMCPMC11977465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.