The following study won #1 James C. Kimbrough Resident Competition Award at 2025 Kimbrough Urological Meeting

‍

Patient Experience with MyUroflow Home Uroflow Application (V3)

Daniel Bender, MD andCarolyn A. Salter, MD

Objectives: MyUroflow is an FDA-approved (510 k) application for at-home uroflowmetry, validated in adult males. We have been using the app at our institution but have no structured feedback from patients. The purpose of this study is to assess the patient experience with the MyUroflow app using a net promotor score (NPS).

Materials and Methods: All adult men who hadat least one void recorded with the MyUroflow app were included. Messages were sent to these patients, explaining the survey and including an access link. The survey was distributed using Qualtrics, a secure online survey platform. Patients were asked how likely they would be to recommend both MyUroflow and in-office uroflow (if applicable) on a scale of 0-10. The survey also includedopen-ended questions on why they gave this score. The NPS was calculated by classifying promotors as a 9 or 10, passives as 7 or 8 and detractors as 6 or below with NPS = % promoters minus % detractors.

Results: 149 men were sent surveys and 39 responded, with a response rate of 26.2%. Twenty-six of the 39 were promoters (66.7%), 9 passives (23.1%), and 4 detractors (10.3%), for an NPS of 56.4%, which is favorable. Seventeen of these men wrote comments that the app was easy and convenient to use. Three of the men reported technical difficulty with recording their voids. Seventeen of these men had also performed in-office testing:10 were promoters (58.9%), 6 passives (35.3%) and 1a detractor (5.9%), for an NPS of 53.0%. Three patients commented on the anxiety, discomfort, and difficulty timing adequate voids with in-office testing.

Conclusion: A similar proportion of patients prefer MyUroflow compared to standard uroflow. The data suggests that MyUroflow is an acceptable alternative to traditional uroflowmetry from a patient satisfaction perspective. While favorable, the relative difference inNPS for home versus office uroflow was less than hypothesized. Potential reasons for the lower-than-expected NPS for MyUroflow can be explained by the patient population in question. Many patients who undergo uroflowmetry are older and may not be as facile with smart phones and apps. In addition, the extra steps required to track voids with the app may be difficult for those with time-sensitive complaints such as urgency or nocturia. Limitations of thesurvey data include a small sample size and low response rates. More data would be beneficial in understanding how to improve integration of MyUroflow in our clinical setting. The qualitative responses are a relative strength of the dataset and serve to highlight common experiences that might not otherwise have been captured. As a pilot study, the data lays the groundwork for improved implementation of the MyUroflow app in clinical practice. The current data suggests that patient selection is key to determining those who will most benefit from home versus in-office uroflowmetry (i.e. those more facile with apps, with anxiety, or time-sensitive voiding complaints). Further study would be beneficial to determine whether implementation of these factors improves patient satisfaction with MyUroflow.

‍