ArticleContinence (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
Development, usability, and randomized pilot feasibility study of a mobile application prototype supporting self-management of accidental bowel leakage.
Article in Continence (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Patients need support in managing conservative interventions for fecal incontinence (FI). To address this need, a three-phased study aimed to develop and test the usability of a mobile application prototype (App-p) supporting patient self-management of FI and examine the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled pilot study of App-p use. Methods: Phase 1: The App-p was developed. Phase 2: App-p usability was tested. Phase 3: In a pilot feasibility study, patients with FI from an American continence/urogynecology practice were randomly assigned 1:1 to a usual care control group (UCC-Group) or usual care and App-p use group (APP-Group) and followed for five weeks. Study activities for both groups were completion of electronic data forms at baseline and five weeks and, at five weeks, a call with their clinician and an interview. Descriptive quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Results: The I'M ABLe App-p described 11 conservative interventions for FI, each with a journal for self-reporting intervention performance. App-p usability was very good (System Usability Score = 72 (12.5) (mean (SD)). Twenty eligible participants were randomized as planned. All study activities were completed by 60 % (6/10) of the UCC-Group and 80 % (8/10) of the APP-Group. All journals were completed by 80 % (8/10) of the APP-Group versus 30 % (3/10) of the UCC-Group. The APP-Group accessed the App-p 27 (5-45) days (median (range)), describing it as easy-to-use, convenient, and increasing self-management accountability. One UCC-Group participant and two APP-Group participants withdrew. Conclusion: Results show feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled study using the App-p and support its further development.
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.