The Effects of Centralized Intensive Education System Compared with an Individualized Ward Education System on the Acquisition of Clean Intermittent Catheterization in Patients with Voiding Dysfunction.
- Author:
Hwang Gyun JEON
1
;
Hwancheol SON
;
Seung June OH
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul. Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Catheterization;
Education;
Questionnaire
- MeSH:
Catheterization;
Catheters;
Education*;
Humans;
Intermittent Urethral Catheterization*;
Male;
Motivation;
Organization and Administration;
Prospective Studies;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Social Class
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2004;45(2):114-119
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate the effects of the centralized intensive education system (CIES) compared with an individualized ward education system (IWES) in the degree of acquisition of the proper clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) method as a treatment of patients with voiding dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2002 to March 2003, a prospective questionnaire study was performed on 122 patients (age 55.7+/-17.0 years; 52 males and 70 females). Patients were randomly divided into two groups (the CIES group versus the IWES group) at the time of the urologic consultation for voiding dysfunction. After the CIC education, the patients were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire about the CIC education. Under the protocol of CIES or IWES for CIC, patients were instructed by doctors or nurses at their wards and performed self- catheterization under supervision. RESULTS: There were 122 patients with 72 patients in CIES, 50 patients in IWES, respectively. There were no differences between two groups in age, sex, education level, and socioeconomic status (p>0.05). CIES was superior to IWES in terms of the patient's understanding on the need for CIC, cause of their voiding dysfunction, help from pictures and the use of instruments related to CIC, sufficient explanation of questions about CIC, overall satisfaction of education, and confidence for CIC after education (p<0.05). There was a significant difference in the number of acquisitions of confidence for CIC between CIES and IWES, which were 3.1 (+/-2.0) times and 5.9 (+/-5.5) times, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our result shows that the CIES is superior to the IWES in CIC education. Further efforts are needed to enhance the understanding on the more detailed knowledge of the CIC and to increase the motivation of the patients.
