Evidence Hub

Acceptance and the influencing factors towards intermittent self-catheterisation among patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction in China: a multicentre cross-sectional study

Fengming Hao, Yingjie Hu, Senying Luo, Ling Chen, Laifu Wang, Dan Wu, Wen-Zhi Cai

BMJ Open, 2024

394 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Objectives The psychological acceptance of intermittent self-catheterisation (ISC) significantly impacts its initial adoption and long-term compliance among patients. However, our understanding of this acceptance remains limited. This study aims to investigate ISC’s psychological acceptance and identify influencing factors among neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) patients in China. Design A cross-sectional study design. Participants A total of 394 patients with NLUTD were recruited from 15 tertiary general hospitals in China. Outcome measure The patients completed a comprehensive questionnaire that included demographic and clinical characteristics, along with study instruments such as the Intermittent Catheterization Acceptance Test (I-CAT), the Intermittent Catheterization Satisfaction Questionnaire (InCaSaQ), the Intermittent Catheterization Difficulty Questionnaire and the Intermittent Self-Catheterization Questionnaire (ISC-Q). Pearson’s correlation analysis explored interrelationships among questionnaire scores, while Spearman’s correlation assessed relationships between categorical independent variables and I-CAT scores. Additionally, multiple linear regression analysis identified key factors influencing psychological acceptance of ISC. Results Nearly half of the participants (46.2%) reported psychological challenges in accepting ISC, and more than 50% of the participants exhibited fear and low self-esteem in their I-CAT questionnaire scores. The I-CAT…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 394 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free