Original Research
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY Volume XX, Number XX, XXXXXX 2014 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Pp. ---–--DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0643
Internet-Based Patient Survey on Urolithiasis Treatment and Patient Satisfaction Thenappan Chandrasekar, MD,1 Manoj Monga,2 Mike Nguyen,3 and Roger K. Low1
Abstract
Purpose: We created an Internet-based survey of patients treated for urolithiasis to evaluate for trends in treatment, outcome, and patient satisfaction and to establish internet surveys as a feasible medium for future research of patient urolithiasis treatment experiences. Materials and Methods: We used the website ‘‘kidneystoners.org’’ to disseminate the online survey, which queried respondents on treatment type, outcome, and satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was correlated with treatment type and outcome. Chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare responses between treatment types. Results: Four hundred forty-three respondents completed the survey. The majority (46%) were treated ureteroscopically, followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL, 25%) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (7%). Other treatments included spontaneous passage (13%), medical expulsive therapy (7%), and home remedies (2%). Sixty-four percent of respondents deemed their treatment ‘‘successful,’’ while 36% reported their treatment as either ‘‘partially successful’’ or ‘‘unsuccessful.’’ Unsuccessful treatment was more likely for SWL (17%) and home remedies (14%) ( p = 0.002). Most respondents (52%) reported being either satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment choice. Satisfaction did not vary significantly by treatment type, but was significantly associated with treatment success (mean satisfaction 3.8/5 for ‘‘successful’’ vs 1.9/5 for ‘‘unsuccessful’’ treatment; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Use of the Internet allows rapid gathering of patient information from a large geographic distribution. Our survey is consistent with previous studies in demonstrating an increased use of ureteroscopy to treat both renal and ureteral calculi. In general, patients are satisfied with treatment outcomes despite a large percentage of people reporting needing to have secondary procedures. The field of urology is no exception. Despite the broad access to the general public that the Internet provides, there has only been limited use of the Internet in the urologic literature. Willard and Nguyen4 and Breyer et al.5 both used Google Insights to identify national epidemiologic trends in kidney stone incidence based on Internet searches. However, direct patient interaction through the Internet has been limited to targeted emailed surveys. A few groups sent targeted emails with links to online surveys to specific populations (medical students,6–9 Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender [LGBT] population,10,11 patients with overactive bladder [OAB]12) based on patient lists obtained from a third party organization. Sebrow et al. sent emailed surveys to their own patient population, with a focus on post-prostatectomy quality of life.13 There have not been, however, any prior studies looking at the feasibility of unsolicited Internet-based surveys. In addition, despite the fact that the incidence of urolithiasis continues to increase in the United States and
Introduction
T
he use of the Internet has been rapidly expanding since its inception, quickly becoming an integral part of our daily lives. The general public’s access to the Internet has also been improving, and as indicated by the United States Census, which has tracked home computer and Internet use since the 1990s, at least 75% of the American population now has Internet access at home.1 As the Internet becomes more pervasive, its role in medicine will continue to expand. Initially used as a source of information for both patients and healthcare providers, it has developed into a medium for healthcare evaluations, access to personal health information, and a means of communication between the patient and their healthcare providers.2,3 However, the medical research community has been slow to utilize this resource, with limited literature in most fields of medicine. 1 2 3
Department of Urology, University of California at Davis, Sacramento, California. Department of Urology, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, California.
1
2
CHANDRASEKAR ET AL.
internationally,14–16 within the field of endourology and stone disease, there have been little to no published data on patient satisfaction after treatment of stone burden. What little has been published in this field has typically been limited to evaluation of a single treatment modality at a single institution. There have been no large volume assessments of patients’ satisfaction with multiple treatment modalities of stone disease, and indeed, it is feasible that the anonymity of an Internet-based survey may provide a deeper insight into patient satisfaction, eliminating the physician-effect of the patients being reluctant to share adverse outcomes with their treating physician. There is a need for large patient population evaluation of urologic treatment of stone disease. Materials and Methods
FIG. 1. Response accrual to online survey over time.
Survey
We utilized the website http://kidneystoners.org, which was created as a noncommercial educational resource for patients with nephrolithiasis, as a vehicle for our patient survey. The survey was a nine-question nonvalidated questionnaire that was posted on the website main page and was optional to all visitors. The survey was kept active for 4.5 months from June 2013 to November 2013, at which point it was closed. All the questions were multiple choice focusing on the following: characteristics of stone burden, modality of treatment, reasons for pursuing specific treatment modalities, success and satisfaction with treatment modality, and what the individual liked and disliked about the treatment modality. The questions pertaining to success and satisfaction were scored on a five-point Likert scale. Demographics
No identifying or demographic information was obtained from the survey respondents directly. Estimates of demographic information for overall visitors to the website were obtained using Quantcast software (Quantcast Corporation, San Francisco, CA). Quantcast reports that it generates demographic estimates using a combination of a javascript tag, which tracks visitors anonymously, and an inference model to characterize audiences. Statistical analysis
Data were summarized with means and proportions. Chisquare and analysis of variance tests were used to identify significant associations between treatment modalities. Analysis was performed using STATA 12.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Results Demographics
Based on data obtained by Quantcast.com, visitors to the website were more likely to be female (69%), college graduate (Bachelor’s degree 45%, Graduate degree 16%), Caucasian (81%), and from the United States (72%). The peak age range of visitors was 35–44 years old (22%). Response accrual
The survey had accrual of 443 responses in a 4.5-month time frame. As seen in Figure 1, the response accrual was
steady during that time period, suggesting that had the survey been maintained, the responses would have continued to accrue. Survey responses
Table 1 highlights key patient responses to the survey questions. The location of the stone burden was evenly split between the kidney (48%) and the ureter (46%). The majority of individuals reported being treated ureteroscopically (46%), followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL, 25%) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL, 7%). Other treatment modalities reported included spontaneous passage (13%), medical expulsive therapy (7%), and home remedies (2%). When split by location of stone burden (Table 2), there is a shift in the treatment modality. For kidney stones, there is an equal usage of SWL (34%) and ureteroscopy (35%), and an 11% reported utilization of PCNL. For ureteral calculi, however, ureteroscopy is the predominant method of treatment, with 63% utilization—SWL (17%) and PCNL (4%) are much less commonly utilized. The most common reason for choosing a treatment modality was physician recommendation (61%) or for highest chance of success (18%). When analyzed against treatment modality, physician recommended and highest chance of success correlated strongest with the more invasive procedures (PCNL and ureteroscopy), while least pain and safest treatment correlated with SWL. The majority of respondents (64%) deemed their treatment ‘‘successful,’’ while 36% reported their treatment as either ‘‘partially successful’’ or ‘‘unsuccessful.’’ When analyzed against modality of treatment, as seen in Figure 2, unsuccessful treatment was more likely for SWL (17%) and home remedies (14%) ( p = 0.002). On the other hand, ureteroscopy and spontaneous passage had the highest rate of successful treatment ( p = 0.002). Most respondents (52%) reported being either satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment choice. Satisfaction did not vary significantly by treatment type, but as seen in Table 3 was significantly associated with treatment success (mean satisfaction 3.8 for successful treatment vs 1.9 for unsuccessful treatment; p < 0.0001). Along the same lines of treatment satisfaction, 55% reported either being ‘‘definitely’’ or ‘‘pretty likely’’ to choose
INTERNET-BASED SURVEY OF UROLITHIASIS PATIENTS
Table 1. Survey Response Summary Country of origin based on IP address United States of America 294 Canada 35 United Kingdom/Europe 48 Asia 21 Australia/New Zealand 24 Other 21 Total 443 I had treatment for a stone in my Kidney 215 Ureter (the tube connecting 203 the kidney to the bladder) I’m not sure 25 Total 443 The treatment I had for my stone was I had ureteroscopy (laser 205 lithotripsy—small scope entering through bladder) I had shockwave lithotripsy 111 (SWL—external sound waves) I had percutaneous surgery 33 (PCNL—scope entering through back) I took a medicine my doctor gave 29 me to help me pass the stone I passed it myself 58 I used a home remedy (such as 7 drinking lemon juice and olive oil) Total 443 What was the most important reason for you choosing this option? Because my doctor recommended it 219 I wanted the highest chance of getting 63 rid of my stone(s) I wanted to avoid surgery 20 I wanted to have the safest treatment 14 I wanted to have the least pain 13 I wanted a quick recovery 11 Other option 11 Total 351 The treatment for my stone was Successful 273 Partially successful 114 Unsuccessful 41 Total 428 Did you need a second treatment/surgery to treat your stones(s)? Yes 186 No 241 Total 427 How satisfied were you with your treatment choice? Very satisfied 93 Satisfied 129 Neutral 100 Unsatisfied 50 Very unsatisfied 54 Total 426 How likely would you be to choose the same treatment again? Definitely 106 Pretty likely 129 Maybe 119 Unlikely 37 Not a chance 36 Total 427
3
Table 2. Treatment Modality Based on Stone Location (Count and Percentage) 66% 8% 11% 5% 5% 5% 48% 46% 6% 46% 25% 7% 7% 13% 2%
61% 18% 6% 4% 4% 3% 4% 64% 26% 10%
44% 56%
Location of stone burden Treatment modality URS SWL PCNL MET Spontaneous passage Home remedy
Kidney 75 73 24 15 22 6
(35%) (34%) (11%) (7%) (10%) (3%)
Ureter 127 34 8 10 23 1
(63%) (17%) (4%) (5%) (11.5%) (0.5%)
URS = ureteroscopy; MET = Medical Expulsive Therapy.
the same treatment again. Likelihood did not vary significantly by treatment type. Figure 3 correlates dissatisfaction and unwillingness to repeat treatment modality, separated by treatment modality. When queried about what they liked most about their treatment modality, 51% stated the ‘‘success of treating stones.’’ Less commonly, people reported ‘‘avoiding surgery’’ (12%), ‘‘avoiding hospitalization’’ (13%), and ‘‘quick recovery’’ (12%). On the other hand, when queried about what they liked least about their treatment modality, the responses were more varied. The most commonly reported complaints were the need for a stent (29%), delay in treatment (23%), and pain during recovery (18%) associated with their stone treatment. Discussion
The purpose of this study was twofold: to assess the current management and effectiveness of urolithiasis in a large patient population (from the patient perspective) and to investigate the use of unsolicited Internet surveys as a medium for future population-based medical research. Looking at the survey responses with relation to stone treatment specifically, we find that the responses regarding treatment modality correlate with recent literature. The growing predominance of the ureteroscopy as a treatment modality for urolithiasis is being established,15,17–19 and our data support ureteroscopic treatment predominance for ureteral stones. There is more of an even distribution of treatment modalities for treatment of renal calculi with 34% treated with SWL, 35% treated with ureteroscopy, and 11%
22% 30% 23% 12% 13%
25% 30% 28% 9% 8%
IP = Internet Protocol; SWL = extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; PCNL = percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
FIG. 2. Success of urolithiasis treatment as defined by treatment modality.
4
CHANDRASEKAR ET AL.
Table 3. Satisfaction with Urolithiasis Treatment Related to Success of Treatment Patient-rated success Successful Partially successful Unsuccessful
Mean satisfaction
95% confidence interval
3.79 2.88 1.90
3.65, 3.94 2.68, 3.07 1.66, 2.14
Analysis of variance p < 0.0001.
treated with PCNL. For ureteral calculi, however, ureteroscopy appears to be the treatment modality of choice (63%), with SWL (17%) a distant second. However, there may be a component of selection bias that may not be accounted for— indeed, patients undergoing ureteroscopy may either be better informed (and have better access to the Internet and Internet-based surveys) or may have more stent or procedural discomfort (and therefore more likely to go to an Internet website dedicated to stone management). As mentioned previously, there is a dearth of literature focusing on patient satisfaction following urolithiasis treatment. Based on these survey results, we found that the majority of patients deemed their stone treatment successful (64%), with a significant correlation to treatment type. Patients found the highest relative rate of success with ureteroscopy and spontaneous passage of stone burden and the least with SWL. When we then queried about treatment satisfaction, a majority of patients (52%) reported being satisfied with their treatment choice—but there was no correlation to treatment modality, only with treatment success. Ultimately, patient satisfaction is best predicted by success of treatment, not by treatment modality. This is corroborated by the fact that 55% of respondents reported being ‘‘definitely’’ or ‘‘pretty likely’’ to choose the same treatment again. Physician recommendation was the strongest motivation for choosing a specific treatment modality, with 61% of respondents reported choosing their treatment modality for that reason. This is important to consider when counseling patients about treatment options, especially with regard to urolithiasis. Although an emphasis is placed on shared medical decision-making, physician bias may impact how a patient is counseled and ultimately what procedure is selected.
FIG. 3. Percentage of respondents unsatisfied with treatment and unwilling to repeat treatment, by treatment modality.
While there were no significant unexpected findings from the survey results, we did note that the absolute rates of patient satisfaction and success were lower than we expected. Prior reports focused mainly on success as dictated by the physician (usually in terms of effectiveness of stone clearance), with few rare reports in the literature looking at patient-reported success and satisfaction. This may explain the lower rates of satisfaction and success in our study, as this survey was from a patient perspective. Prior studies in other fields have established patient–physician discordance with regard to the management of chronic illness and postsurgical management.20,21 Patient responses about their likes and dislikes about their management are also revealing. In concordance with our above findings, the most important aspect of their care that respondents liked—and the factor most important to them— was the success of their treatment. All other factors were much less important to most respondents—including factors such as length of hospitalization and speed of recovery, etc. However, the responses to the question focusing on patient dislikes were less homogenous—the need for stent, delay in treatment, and pain with recovery were all equally bothersome for patients. This provides us with insight regarding opportunities for improvement, with a focus on pain management, earlier access to treatment, and management of stent discomfort. In the end, however, this survey is not a validated questionnaire. It is therefore difficult to make any broad statements about the nature of stone treatment based on these results alone. The main purpose of this study was to establish the Internet as a medium for future research and its ability to reach a larger patient population in a short period of time. The Internet has become an integral part of the daily lives of patients and healthcare providers, playing a role in both education and delivery of healthcare. However, despite this growing role in other aspects of medical care, there has been limited use of this medium as a resource for research purposes. Within the field of urology, the use has been limited to use of Google Insight to track trends in Internet searches or to generate targeted surveys of preselected patient populations, typically other healthcare professionals. There have been no prior published data on the use of the medium to directly query the general population about treatment and satisfaction. The accrual of 443 responses in a 4.5-month period for this survey demonstrates that using an Internet-mediated patient survey that is open to the general Internet traffic can generate a large-volume response in a short period of time. While demographics were not obtained directly, the data from Quantcast.com suggest a relatively diverse patient population, drawing in *30% international response, 30% male response, and a wide age range distribution. This access to such a large diverse population is an important tool for researchers who want to do larger population-based studies, and it is a resource that has not been tapped as yet. Our study has its limitations as well. As can be expected, with any new medium, there are unique limitations and biases that need to be accounted for. However, just as with initial patient surveys done on paper, we need to establish validation of online surveys with further studies. Bernstein et al. have started this process by demonstrating that the online administration of the previously validated SHIM tool maintained validity.22
INTERNET-BASED SURVEY OF UROLITHIASIS PATIENTS
In addition, there may potentially be a selection bias— individuals voluntarily submitting a survey on stone disease management on a website dedicated to stone disease may not represent the overall urolithiasis population. If anything, however, there is likely a bias toward patients who were unhappy with their stone management—so our response rates would underestimate the treatment success and satisfaction scores of the overall population. However, as the results for the management of stone disease correlated well with the published literature, it is unclear how much of a role selection bias actually plays.
5
11.
12. 13.
Conclusion
Ultimately, despite its limitations, our findings establish that an unsolicited Internet-based survey can provide access to a large diverse demographic—and is a tool that should be utilized in future medical research. Further research needs to be done to validate surveys completed online to allow for substantive patient-centered evaluation of current treatment modalities for a variety of medical conditions. Disclosure Statement
14. 15. 16. 17.
No competing financial interests exist. 18. References
1. United States Census Bureau EaSD. Computer and Internet Use in the United States. Washington: US Census Bureau, 2013. 2. Atkinson NL, Saperstein SL, Pleis J. Using the internet for health-related activities: Findings from a national probability sample. J Med Internet Res 2009;11:e4. 3. Verhoef LM, Van de Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Schoonhoven L, Kool RB. Social media and rating sites as tools to understanding quality of care: A scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e56. 4. Willard SD, Nguyen MM. Internet search trends analysis tools can provide real-time data on kidney stone disease in the United States. Urology 2013;81:37–42. 5. Breyer BN, Sen S, Aaronson DS, Stoller ML, Erickson BA, Eisenberg ML. Use of Google insights for search to track seasonal and geographic kidney stone incidence in the United States. Urology 2011;78:267–271. 6. Breyer BN, Smith JF, Eisenberg ML, Ando KA, Rowen TS, Shindel AW. The impact of sexual orientation on sexuality and sexual practices in North American medical students. J Sex Med 2010;7:2391–2400. 7. Shindel AW, Ando KA, Nelson CJ, Breyer BN, Lue TF, Smith JF. Medical student sexuality: How sexual experience and sexuality training impact U.S. and Canadian medical students’ comfort in dealing with patients’ sexuality in clinical practice. Acad Med 2010;85:1321–1330. 8. Shindel AW, Breyer BN, Smith JF. Associations of desire for change in sexual life amongst female medical students in North America. Int J Impot Res 2013;25:74–79. 9. Smith JF, Breyer BN, Shindel AW. Predictors of sexual bother in a population of male North American medical students. J Sex Med 2011;8:3363–3369. 10. Breyer BN, Vittinghoff E, Van Den Eeden SK, Erickson BA, Shindel AW. Effect of sexually transmitted infections,
19. 20.
21.
22.
lifetime sexual partner count, and recreational drug use on lower urinary tract symptoms in men who have sex with men. Urology 2012;79:188–193. Shindel AW, Rowen TS, Lin TC, Li CS, Robertson PA, Breyer BN. An Internet survey of demographic and health factors associated with risk of sexual dysfunction in women who have sex with women. J Sex Med 2012;9: 1261–1271. Coyne KS, Sexton CC, Clemens JQ, et al. The impact of OAB on physical activity in the United States: Results from OAB-POLL. Urology 2013;82:799–806. Sebrow D, Lavery HJ, Brajtbord JS, Hobbs A, Levinson AW, Samadi DB. Monitoring validated quality of life outcomes after prostatectomy: Initial description of novel online questionnaire. Urology 2012;79:314–319. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: A global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 2010;12:e86–e96. Scales CD, Jr. Practice patterns in the management of urinary lithiasis. Curr Urol Rep 2013;14:154–157. Scales CD, Jr., Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS, Urologic Diseases in America Project. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 2012;62:160–165. Busby JE, Low RK. Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:89–98. De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2014 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.003. Wang AJ, Preminger GM. Modern applications of ureteroscopy for intrarenal stone disease. Curr Opin Urol 2011; 21:141–144. Yen JC, Abrahamowicz M, Dobkin PL, Clarke AE, Battista RN, Fortin PR. Determinants of discordance between patients and physicians in their assessment of lupus disease activity. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1967–1976. Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P, et al. Differences between patients’ and physicians’ evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78: 835–838. Bernstein AN, Levinson AW, Hobbs AR, Lavery HJ, Samadi DB. Validation of online administration of the sexual health inventory for men. J Urol 2013;189:1456–1461.
Address correspondence to: Thenappan Chandrasekar, MD Department of Urology University of California at Davis 4860 Y Street Suite 2200 Sacramento, CA 95817 E-mail:
[email protected] Abbreviations Used PCNL ¼ percutaneous nephrolithotomy SWL ¼ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy URS ¼ ureteroscopy