Halina M Zyczynski1, Holly E Richter2, Vivian W Sung3, Lily A Arya4, Emily S Lukacz5, Anthony G Visco6, David D Rahn7, Benjamin Carper8, Donna Mazloomdoost9, Marie G Gantz8. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh/Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Women's and Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital of University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Department of Reproductive Medicine, UC San Diego Health Care System, San Diego, California, USA. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA. 8. Biostatistics and Epidemiology Division, RTI International, Durham, NC, USA. 9. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess performance, acceptability, external validity, and reliability of a phone application electronic bowel diary (PFDN Bowel eDiary). METHODS:Women reporting refractory accidental bowel leakage (ABL) were enrolled in a randomized, crossover trial evaluating paper versus eDiary documentation of bowel movements (BM) and fecal incontinence episodes (FIE). Events were characterized by the presence or absence of urgency and Bristol stool scale consistency. The eDiary entries were date/time stamped and prompted by twice-daily phone notifications. Women were randomized to complete up to three consecutive 14-day diaries in two sequences. Diary events were compared between formats using the Pearson correlation. System usability scale (SUS) assessed eDiary usability. The eDiary test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlations (ICCs). RESULTS: Paired diary data were available from 60/69 (87%) women 63.8 ± 9.8 years old with mean 13.2 BM per week and 6.5 FIE per week (nearly half with urgency). Among those providing diaries, adherence did not differ by paper or eDiary (93.3% vs. 95.0%). Notifications prompted 29.6% of eDiary entries, improving adherence from 70% to 95%. Paper and eDiaries were moderate to-strongly correlated for BMs per week (r = .61), urgency BMs per week (r = .76), FIE per week (r = .66), urgency FIE per week (r = .72). Test-retest reliability was good (ICC = .81 BMs per week, .79 urgency BMs per week, .74 FIE per week, and .62 urgency FIE per week). The mean SUS score was high, 82.3 ± 17.5 (range, 0-100) with 91.4% rating it easy to use, and 75.9% preferring the eDiary over paper. CONCLUSION: The PFDN Bowel eDiary correlated well with paper diary was considered easy to use, preferred to paper diaries, had high rates of confirmed real-time diary completion that obviated staff data entry.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To assess performance, acceptability, external validity, and reliability of a phone application electronic bowel diary (PFDN Bowel eDiary). METHODS:Women reporting refractory accidental bowel leakage (ABL) were enrolled in a randomized, crossover trial evaluating paper versus eDiary documentation of bowel movements (BM) and fecal incontinence episodes (FIE). Events were characterized by the presence or absence of urgency and Bristol stool scale consistency. The eDiary entries were date/time stamped and prompted by twice-daily phone notifications. Women were randomized to complete up to three consecutive 14-day diaries in two sequences. Diary events were compared between formats using the Pearson correlation. System usability scale (SUS) assessed eDiary usability. The eDiary test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlations (ICCs). RESULTS: Paired diary data were available from 60/69 (87%) women 63.8 ± 9.8 years old with mean 13.2 BM per week and 6.5 FIE per week (nearly half with urgency). Among those providing diaries, adherence did not differ by paper or eDiary (93.3% vs. 95.0%). Notifications prompted 29.6% of eDiary entries, improving adherence from 70% to 95%. Paper and eDiaries were moderate to-strongly correlated for BMs per week (r = .61), urgency BMs per week (r = .76), FIE per week (r = .66), urgency FIE per week (r = .72). Test-retest reliability was good (ICC = .81 BMs per week, .79 urgency BMs per week, .74 FIE per week, and .62 urgency FIE per week). The mean SUS score was high, 82.3 ± 17.5 (range, 0-100) with 91.4% rating it easy to use, and 75.9% preferring the eDiary over paper. CONCLUSION: The PFDN Bowel eDiary correlated well with paper diary was considered easy to use, preferred to paper diaries, had high rates of confirmed real-time diary completion that obviated staff data entry.
Authors: Daniel D Lee; Lily A Arya; Uduak U Andy; Mary D Sammel; Heidi S Harvie Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Adil E Bharucha; Alan R Zinsmeister; G Richard Locke; Barbara M Seide; Kimberly McKeon; Cathy D Schleck; L Joseph Melton Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Paul Abrams; Jean Paty; Reynaldo Martina; Donald T Newgreen; Rob van Maanen; Asha Paireddy; Trudy Kuipers-deGroot; Arwin Ridder Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Abdul H Sultan; Ash Monga; Joseph Lee; Anton Emmanuel; Christine Norton; Giulio Santoro; Tracy Hull; Bary Berghmans; Stuart Brody; Bernard T Haylen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Halina M Zyczynski; Holly E Richter; Vivian W Sung; Emily S Lukacz; Lily A Arya; David D Rahn; Anthony G Visco; Donna Mazloomdoost; Benjamin Carper; Marie G Gantz Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Halina M Zyczynski; Lily A Arya; Emily S Lukacz; Holly E Richter; David D Rahn; Vivian W Sung; Anthony G Visco; Amanda Shaffer; J Eric Jelovsek; Rebecca Rogers; Donna Mazloomdoost; Marie G Gantz Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 1.913
Authors: Jens Lehmann; Isabel Schreyer; David Riedl; Michael Tschuggnall; Johannes M Giesinger; Marjiana Ninkovic; Marcus Huth; Irmgard Kronberger; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.796