PURPOSE: One potential strategy for improving voiding diary completion rates and data quality is use of a mobile electronic format. We evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of mobile voiding diaries for patients with nonneurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, and compared mobile and paper voiding diaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled children presenting with daytime symptoms of lower urinary tract dysfunction between July 2012 and April 2013. We enrolled an initial cohort of patients who were provided a paper voiding diary and a subsequent cohort who were provided a mobile voiding diary. We conducted in person interviews and assessed completion rates and quality, comparing paper and mobile voiding diary groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 45 patients who received a paper voiding diary and 38 who received a mobile voiding diary. Completion rates were 78% for paper voiding diaries and 61% for mobile voiding diaries (p = 0.10). Data quality measures for patients completing paper vs mobile voiding diaries revealed a larger proportion (63% vs 52%) providing a full 5 days of data and a smaller proportion (20% vs 65%) with data gaps. However, the paper voiding diary also demonstrated a lower proportion (80% vs 100%) that was completely legible and a lower proportion (40% vs 65%) with completely prospective data entry. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a mobile voiding diary was acceptable and feasible for our patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction, although completion rates were somewhat lower compared to paper voiding diaries. Data quality was not clearly better for either version. The mobile voiding diary format may offer data quality advantages for select groups but it did not display significant superiority when provided universally.
PURPOSE: One potential strategy for improving voiding diary completion rates and data quality is use of a mobile electronic format. We evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of mobile voiding diaries for patients with nonneurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, and compared mobile and paper voiding diaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled children presenting with daytime symptoms of lower urinary tract dysfunction between July 2012 and April 2013. We enrolled an initial cohort of patients who were provided a paper voiding diary and a subsequent cohort who were provided a mobile voiding diary. We conducted in person interviews and assessed completion rates and quality, comparing paper and mobile voiding diary groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 45 patients who received a paper voiding diary and 38 who received a mobile voiding diary. Completion rates were 78% for paper voiding diaries and 61% for mobile voiding diaries (p = 0.10). Data quality measures for patients completing paper vs mobile voiding diaries revealed a larger proportion (63% vs 52%) providing a full 5 days of data and a smaller proportion (20% vs 65%) with data gaps. However, the paper voiding diary also demonstrated a lower proportion (80% vs 100%) that was completely legible and a lower proportion (40% vs 65%) with completely prospective data entry. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a mobile voiding diary was acceptable and feasible for our patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction, although completion rates were somewhat lower compared to paper voiding diaries. Data quality was not clearly better for either version. The mobile voiding diary format may offer data quality advantages for select groups but it did not display significant superiority when provided universally.
Authors: Giovana T Vaz; Monica M Vasconcelos; Eduardo A Oliveira; Aline L Ferreira; Paula G Magalhães; Fabiana M Silva; Eleonora M Lima Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 3.714