SynthesisBMJ open2025
Perceptions and experiences of factors determining the inappropriate use and timely removal of indwelling urinary catheters in hospitals and nursing homes: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo synthesise the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patients/residents of hospitals/nursing homes about determinants of inappropriate indwelling urinary catheter (IUC) use and strategies for reduction.
designQualitative evidence synthesis. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and CINAHL for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 May 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they used qualitative methods to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare professionals and patients/residents of hospitals/nursing homes or their family members regarding the determinants of IUC use and reduction. Included studies focused on behavioural drivers or strategies to reduce inappropriate IUC use. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent authors reviewed the search results, extracted and coded data, and assessed methodological strengths and limitations of studies. We used a thematic synthesis approach following the Cochrane-Campbell Handbook for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research approach to assess confidence in the findings.
resultsWe synthesised 24 studies. Perceived determinants of inappropriate IUC use included non-adherence to guidelines due to vague indications for initial IUC insertion, differing perspectives on benefits and risks, low priority given to the topic, limited accessibility or perceived unsuitability of alternatives, high nurse workload and staff shortages (moderate confidence). Ineffective nurse-physician communication, documentation difficulties and lack of training were also assumed to be linked to inappropriate IUC use (low confidence). Mentioned strategies for the reduction of inappropriate IUC use included additional training for healthcare professionals, clinician reminders to review or remove catheters, improved electronic documentation systems, increased staffing and greater use of IUC alternatives.
conclusionKey drivers of inappropriate IUC use are vague indications and routine decisions, lack of suitable and available alternatives, staff shortages and perceived lack of importance of the topic. Addressing these barriers is important for deimplementing inappropriate IUC use, and multifaceted strategies appear to be the most promising approach to address the multiple factors that drive current IUC misuse. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024531522.
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.