ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinician and patient perspectives on a novel device for measuring urine flow volume and voiding patterns.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At least 60% of adults over 40 experience symptoms related to the storage passage of urine that negatively affect their health and quality of life. Our research team is developing a device to deliver noninvasive long-term urine measures at the patient's home or clinic. We employed a participatory-design approach to guide development in understanding end-user needs. We gathered data from 45 stakeholders through focus groups with clinicians (N = 40, including medical doctors (urologists), pelvic-floor physical therapists, and nurses) and semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers (N = 5). Our results showed similarities (e.g., collecting urine storage and voiding data) and differences (e.g., the importance of pelvic-floor function for physical therapists, and the associated workload of using the device for nurses) among the three clinician groups. There were differences between clinicians and patients, the latter emphasizing the shame and discomfort associated with current diagnostic procedures. We gathered participants' views on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed device, considerations for use, and design suggestions. Our results emphasize the importance of including the end users in early design stages of a novel technology tailored to the target population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.