Switching from intermittent catheterization with single‐use catheter to a reusable catheter has a negative impact on quality of life

Abstract

AbstractPurposeIt has been proposed that reusable catheters are more cost effective and environmentally sustainable than single‐use catheters intended for intermittent catheterization (IC). However, the aspect of individuals' well‐being and preference for catheter type is not considered. In this study, we investigated the impact on individuals' health‐related quality of life (HR‐QoL) when testing a reusable catheter.Materials and MethodsThe study was an open‐labeled, single‐arm, multicenter investigation with a treatment period of 28 days. Forty subjects using single‐use hydrophilic catheters were accustomed to a reusable catheter for managing IC. HR‐QoL was evaluated by the Intermittent‐Self Catheterization Questionnaire (ISC‐Q). Additionally, satisfaction was evaluated by the Intermittent Catheterization Satisfaction Questionnaire (InCaSa‐Q). The difference in total score was analyzed using a mixed linear model. Furthermore, preference for IC (single‐use vs. reusable) was assessed and microbial evaluation of the catheters was performed.ResultsThe total ISC‐Q score measuring HR‐QoL decreased significantly by 28% (p < 0.001). Two of the four subdomains (ease‐of‐use and discreetness) also decreased significantly (p < 0.001). The total InCaSa‐score and all four subdomains evaluating satisfaction decreased significantly (p < 0.005). The primary study results were supported by the fact that 90.9% of subjects preferred to use a single‐use catheter for IC. Furthermore, 50% of reusable catheters were contaminated with bacteria.ConclusionSwitching from single‐use to reusable IC resulted in a significant decrease in HR‐QoL and satisfaction. Moreover, the vast majority preferred the single‐use catheter due to handling and convenience. The users' rights to their preferred bladder management method should be acknowledged.