ArticleJMIR pediatrics and parenting2025
Understanding Pediatric Patient Experiences with Urotherapy Tools: Qualitative Focus Group Study.
Article in JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Standard urotherapy for childhood incontinence involves traditional tools like paper bladder diaries, timer watches, wetting alarms, and uroflowmeters. However, little is known about how these tools are experienced by today's digitally native children. Objective: This study aimed to explore how children undergoing urotherapy perceive and experience these commonly used tools, with the goal of informing more engaging and child-centered design approaches. Methods: A qualitative focus group design was used with purposive sampling of children undergoing in-clinic urotherapy group training. In total, 19 participants (13 boys and 6 girls) aged 9-13 years took part in focus groups of 3 to 4 children, held at the hospital. A child-friendly focus group toolkit was used to facilitate discussion through creative and playful exercises. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted, including 2 repeated sessions, until thematic saturation was reached. All sessions were held in Dutch, video- and audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. An inductive conventional content analysis was conducted using a dual-coder approach to identify and iteratively refine emerging themes. Results: Four themes emerged: (1) attitudes and motivation: ranging from willingness to engage in urotherapy and use tools to reluctance or resistance; (2) social acceptance: highlighting the impact of peer perception, fear of being bullied, and opportunities to break the taboo and reframe tools as socially desirable; (3) contextual influences: including dissatisfaction with school toilets and limited child involvement at doctor visits, contrasted with the positive peer support experienced during group therapy; and (4) digital integration: children saw many traditional tools as outdated and suggested gamified, smart alternatives. The drawings created by children during the exercises served as a creative reflection of these thematic findings. Conclusions: Involving children in research and design is essential for creating interventions that are truly child-centered. Through creative, qualitative methods, this study uncovered rich insights into children's experiences with urotherapy tools, pointing to 4 key design priorities: personalization, stigma-free design, adaptability, and digital innovation.
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.