PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
To evaluate if question phrasing and patient numeracy impact estimation of urinary frequency.
We conducted a prospective study looking at reliability of a patient interview in assessing urinary frequency. Prior to completing a voiding diary, patients estimated daytime, and nighttime frequency in 3 ways: (1) how many times they urinated (2) how many hours they waited in between urinations (3) how many times they urinated over the course of 4 hours. Numeracy was assessed using the Lipkus Numeracy Scale.
Seventy-one patients completed the study. Correlation of estimates from questions 1, 2, and 3 to the diary were not statistically different. Prediction of nighttime frequency was better than daytime for all questions (correlation coefficients 0.751, 0.754, and 0.670 vs 0.596, 0.575, and 0.460). When compared to the diary, Question 1 underestimated (8.5 vs 9.7, P = .014) while Question 2 overestimated (11.8 vs 9.7, P = .027) recorded voids on a diary. All questions overpredicted nighttime frequency with 2.6, 2.9, and 3.9 predicted versus 1.6 recorded voids (P < .001). Although not statistically significant, for each question, the predicted frequency of numerate patients was more correlated to the diary than those of innumerate patients.
When compared to a voiding diary for daytime urinary frequency, asking patients how many times they urinated underestimated, and asking patients how many hours they waited between urinations overestimated the number recorded voids. Regardless of phrasing, patients overestimated nighttime urination. Patients in our functional urology population have limited numeracy, which may impact accuracy of urinary frequency estimation.
We conducted a prospective study looking at reliability of a patient interview in assessing urinary frequency. Prior to completing a voiding diary, patients estimated daytime, and nighttime frequency in 3 ways: (1) how many times they urinated (2) how many hours they waited in between urinations (3) how many times they urinated over the course of 4 hours. Numeracy was assessed using the Lipkus Numeracy Scale.
Seventy-one patients completed the study. Correlation of estimates from questions 1, 2, and 3 to the diary were not statistically different. Prediction of nighttime frequency was better than daytime for all questions (correlation coefficients 0.751, 0.754, and 0.670 vs 0.596, 0.575, and 0.460). When compared to the diary, Question 1 underestimated (8.5 vs 9.7, P = .014) while Question 2 overestimated (11.8 vs 9.7, P = .027) recorded voids on a diary. All questions overpredicted nighttime frequency with 2.6, 2.9, and 3.9 predicted versus 1.6 recorded voids (P < .001). Although not statistically significant, for each question, the predicted frequency of numerate patients was more correlated to the diary than those of innumerate patients.
When compared to a voiding diary for daytime urinary frequency, asking patients how many times they urinated underestimated, and asking patients how many hours they waited between urinations overestimated the number recorded voids. Regardless of phrasing, patients overestimated nighttime urination. Patients in our functional urology population have limited numeracy, which may impact accuracy of urinary frequency estimation.
摘要：
评估问题措辞和患者算术是否影响尿频的估计。
我们进行了一项前瞻性研究，观察患者访谈评估尿频的可靠性。在完成作废日记之前，患者估计白天，和夜间频率有三种方式:(1)他们排尿多少次(2)他们在排尿之间等了多少小时(3)他们在4小时的过程中排尿多少次。使用LipkusNumeracy量表评估Numeracy。
71名患者完成了研究。问题1、2和3的估计与日记的相关性没有统计学差异。对于所有问题，夜间频率的预测均优于白天（相关系数0.751、0.754和0.670vs0.596、0.575和0.460）。与日记相比，问题1低估了（8.5vs9.7，P=.014），而问题2高估了（11.8vs9.7，P=.027）记录了日记上的空白。所有问题都高估了夜间频率，预测为2.6、2.9和3.9，而记录的空白为1.6（P<.001）。虽然没有统计学意义，对于每个问题，与不计数患者相比，计算患者的预测频率与日记的相关性更高。
当与排尿日记的白天尿频相比，询问患者排尿次数被低估了多少次，并询问患者在排尿之间等待了多少小时，高估了记录的空隙数。不管措辞如何，患者高估了夜间排尿。在我们的功能性泌尿外科人群中，患者的计算能力有限，这可能会影响尿频估计的准确性。
我们进行了一项前瞻性研究，观察患者访谈评估尿频的可靠性。在完成作废日记之前，患者估计白天，和夜间频率有三种方式:(1)他们排尿多少次(2)他们在排尿之间等了多少小时(3)他们在4小时的过程中排尿多少次。使用LipkusNumeracy量表评估Numeracy。
71名患者完成了研究。问题1、2和3的估计与日记的相关性没有统计学差异。对于所有问题，夜间频率的预测均优于白天（相关系数0.751、0.754和0.670vs0.596、0.575和0.460）。与日记相比，问题1低估了（8.5vs9.7，P=.014），而问题2高估了（11.8vs9.7，P=.027）记录了日记上的空白。所有问题都高估了夜间频率，预测为2.6、2.9和3.9，而记录的空白为1.6（P<.001）。虽然没有统计学意义，对于每个问题，与不计数患者相比，计算患者的预测频率与日记的相关性更高。
当与排尿日记的白天尿频相比，询问患者排尿次数被低估了多少次，并询问患者在排尿之间等待了多少小时，高估了记录的空隙数。不管措辞如何，患者高估了夜间排尿。在我们的功能性泌尿外科人群中，患者的计算能力有限，这可能会影响尿频估计的准确性。
