Premium
Recommendations for conducting invasive urodynamics for men with lower urinary tract symptoms: Qualitative interview findings from a large randomized controlled trial (UPSTREAM)
Author(s) -
Selman Lucy E.,
Ochieng Cynthia A.,
Lewis Amanda L.,
Drake Marcus J.,
Horwood Jeremy
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
neurourology and urodynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1520-6777
pISSN - 0733-2467
DOI - 10.1002/nau.23855
Subject(s) - medicine , lower urinary tract symptoms , urodynamic testing , randomized controlled trial , embarrassment , thematic analysis , test (biology) , nocturia , physical therapy , urinary system , qualitative research , gynecology , prostate , psychology , social psychology , social science , paleontology , cancer , sociology , biology
Aims To capture in‐depth qualitative evidence regarding attitudes to and experiences of urodynamic testing among men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) at each end of the clinical pathway. Methods Semi‐structured interview study conducted within the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery: Randomized Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) trial, which randomized men to a care pathway including urodynamics or routine non‐invasive tests from 26 secondary care urology sites across England. Men were interviewed after assessments but prior to treatment, or after surgery for LUTS. Men were purposively sampled to include those who had urodynamics and those who did not, and diversity in demographic characteristics and symptom burden. Interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Forty‐one men participated (25 pre‐treatment, 16 post‐surgery), ages 52‐89. The 16 men who had not previously experienced urodynamics said they would accept the test in their assessment, but some were apprehensive or wanted more information. The 25 men who had experienced urodynamics all found it acceptable, though some reported pain, infection, or embarrassment. Embarrassment was minimized by informing patients what the procedure would be like, and ensuring privacy. Urodynamics was valued for its perceived diagnostic insight. Information deficits were reported before, during, and after the test. How and when results were explained and the adequacy of explanations varied. Conclusions Urodynamics is acceptable to men with LUTS and generally well‐tolerated. To ensure patients are prepared and informed, good communication before and during the procedure is essential. Privacy should be prioritized, and test results discussed promptly and in sufficient detail. Staff require training and guidance in these areas.