OBJECTIVE: In the treatment of monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis (MNE), enuretic alarm devices (EADs) are the first recommended treatment option. This study aimed to evaluate parental and child compliance with EAD treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients for whom EAD therapy was recommended were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 10.4 years (5-16). All the patients were nursery or school children. Patients who did not return for their follow-up visits were called by phone, and verbal information were gathered about the use and performance success of the device. We documented the patients who used, and did not use the EAD with their reasons. RESULTS: Nineteen (36%) patients were able to use the EAD without any problems. Eight of the remaining 31 patients didn't return for control, and they could not be get in touch with, either. Of the 23 (46%) families whom we could get a contact, 4 families did not purchase EAD due to a decrease in the number of wet nights, 4 families due to compensatory payment, and 3 families due to reluctance of one of the parents. One family reported that they gave up the EAD treatment because of the disturbing loud volume of the device. Four families reported that their children refused to use the EAD. Four families said that they could not use the EAD regularly because the device frequently did not work properly. In this study, we could not keep in touch with 16% of the patients, and 46% of the patients stopped using or did not receive this therapy. CONCLUSION: Although EAD has been the priorly recommended alternative with its relatively higher success, and lower recurrence rates, our study demonstrated that the compliance of families with this treatment is below the expected level.
OBJECTIVE: In the treatment of monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis (MNE), enuretic alarm devices (EADs) are the first recommended treatment option. This study aimed to evaluate parental and child compliance with EAD treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients for whom EAD therapy was recommended were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 10.4 years (5-16). All the patients were nursery or school children. Patients who did not return for their follow-up visits were called by phone, and verbal information were gathered about the use and performance success of the device. We documented the patients who used, and did not use the EAD with their reasons. RESULTS: Nineteen (36%) patients were able to use the EAD without any problems. Eight of the remaining 31 patients didn't return for control, and they could not be get in touch with, either. Of the 23 (46%) families whom we could get a contact, 4 families did not purchase EAD due to a decrease in the number of wet nights, 4 families due to compensatory payment, and 3 families due to reluctance of one of the parents. One family reported that they gave up the EAD treatment because of the disturbing loud volume of the device. Four families reported that their children refused to use the EAD. Four families said that they could not use the EAD regularly because the device frequently did not work properly. In this study, we could not keep in touch with 16% of the patients, and 46% of the patients stopped using or did not receive this therapy. CONCLUSION: Although EAD has been the priorly recommended alternative with its relatively higher success, and lower recurrence rates, our study demonstrated that the compliance of families with this treatment is below the expected level.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alarm treatment; family compliance; monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis
Authors: Noreen Caswell; Kaya Kuru; Darren Ansell; Martin J Jones; Benjamin Jon Watkinson; Peter Leather; Andrew Lancaster; Paula Sugden; Eleanor Briggs; Carl Davies; Chooi Oh; Kina Bennett; Christian DeGoede Journal: Pharmaceut Med Date: 2020-02