ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2026
Patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of educational tools to reduce urine culture contamination in outpatient clinics: a qualitative study.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Iteratively develop educational tools (instructional video and flyer) to improve midstream clean catch (MSCC) urine sample collection using patient and healthcare professionals' input. Design: Multi-method qualitative study. Setting: Outpatient clinics in Houston, Texas, United States. Participants: Adult patients recruited from public and private clinics ( Methods: Twelve patient interviews and three focus groups with HCPs (May 2024-November 2024). Interviews discussed patient experiences using the educational tools to guide urine specimen collection. Focus groups elicited HCPs' perspectives on the comprehensibility and utility of the tools in their respective clinics. We identified themes using directed content analysis. Results: We garnered insight into knowledge gaps and barriers for completing the MSCC process. MSCC instructions in existing educational tools were poorly understood by patients, especially among those with limited understanding of urogenital anatomy. Patient barriers to MSCC collection included physical difficulties due to poor urine stream control, mobility issues, and obesity. Patients and HCPs reported that our tools addressed patient gaps in understanding of MSCC instructions. Patients and HCPs also suggested that we accompany our tools with assistive devices and dedicated surfaces in the clinic bathrooms, to better meet patients' needs in urine specimen collection. Conclusions: Initial feedback was promising that our educational tools would improve the MSCC collection process for patients. In next steps, we will conduct feasibility pilot testing followed by a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of reducing urine culture contamination.
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.