ArticleCureus2025
Sustainable Patient Education in Urology: Evaluating Quick Response (QR) Code-Based Information Delivery.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background Clear communication and effective dissemination of information remain the mainstay of any clinical appointment. This allows the clinician and the patient to formulate a management plan with informed consent from the patient. The British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) provides validated patient information leaflets (PILs) that aid in this discussion. Our study evaluated the practicality and patient satisfaction of using quick response (QR) codes for the dissemination of PIL as a means to reduce our carbon footprint. Method We performed a prospective short quality improvement study in two phases. For the first phase, we collected data from consecutive patients over a period of one week to be able to include all types of clinics, and we focused on the feasibility of using QR codes for PIL in our patient cohort. For the second phase, we collected data over a month and included patients who were provided with a QR code for the PIL during previous consultations. During this phase, we focused on patient satisfaction after implementing the QR code for PIL. Results For the first phase, 77 patients were included, 91% (n=70) male with a median age of 76 years (range 20-90), 87% (n=67) were using a smartphone. 74% (n=57) were aware of QR codes, and 64% (n=49) were willing to use QR codes for PIL. For the second phase, 50 patients were included, 90% male with a median age of 54 years (range 31-70). 100% (n=50) of patients agreed QR codes were easy and convenient to use. 80% (n=40) preferred QR codes to paper PIL. Conclusion The use of QR code PILs is gaining acceptance, especially with the increasing use of smartphones. While printed copies should be available for those who prefer them, QR codes offer a sustainable and cost-effective alternative. Within the limitations of our study, patients showed a willingness to adopt QR codes and provided positive feedback, but given the small sample size and short study period, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. The transition to QR codes would support environmental goals, reduce expenses, and ensure privacy while effectively delivering validated information to patients.
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.