ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Decision Preparedness and User Experience with a Urinary Incontinence Patient Decision Aid in U.S. Primary Care.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPatient decision aid (PDA) use for urinary incontinence (UI) in primary care settings is understudied. We evaluated users' experiences with a specialty-developed UI PDA implemented in primary care. We also examined the association of decision preparedness, perceived usability, and time spent in the PDA with user experience and summarized user feedback.
methodsThis concurrent mixed-methods secondary analysis included women aged ≥18 years with bothersome UI in primary care who accessed a computerized PDA. User experience was assessed using likelihood-to-recommend (LTR) ratings as a global user-experience measure, with ratings of 9-10 categorized as promoter status. Decision preparedness and perceived usability were assessed using validated questionnaire items reflecting decisional conflict and usability domains. Free-text feedback was summarized qualitatively to elaborate opportunities to improve user experience.
resultsOf the 958 users who completed the PDA, 240 (25.1%) provided LTR ratings; the mean LTR was 6.0 (SD 3.5), and 31% were promoters. In multivariable logistic regression adjusting for decision preparedness, perceived usability, and time spent in the PDA, both decision preparedness (aOR 4.92; 95% CI 2.68-9.25) and perceived usability (aOR 1.75; 95% CI 1.22-2.60) were associated with promoter status. Time spent in PDA was not associated with promoter status. Qualitative findings complemented quantitative results by highlighting opportunities to improve clarity, accessibility, and personalization.
conclusionsFewer than one-third of the respondents gave the highest likelihood-to-recommend ratings. Decision preparedness and perceived usability were associated with favorable user experience, suggesting that primary care implementation of UI PDAs may require greater attention to decisional readiness, personalization, and integration with clinician discussion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42766159What 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.