Response to 'Knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs about urinary tract infections in persons with neurogenic bladder and impacts on interventions to promote person-centered care'

Margaret A. Fitzpatrick,Marissa Wirth,Stephen P. Burns,Charlesnika T. Evans
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-024-01021-5
2024-07-29
Spinal Cord
Abstract:We thank the editors for the opportunity to respond to a letter by Walther regarding our article 'Knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs about urinary tract infections in persons with neurogenic bladder and impacts on interventions to promote person-centered care' [1]. We also thank the commentator for raising an important issue regarding terminology for lower urinary tract dysfunction in people with chronic neurologic injuries and disorders. We agree with the commentator that a move toward more inclusive and more accurate terminology for what has historically been referred to as 'neurogenic bladder' is appropriate, although we note that this term is still commonly used in both research and clinical practice [2,3,4,5]. We acknowledge that our article could have benefited from using the more recently proposed terminology of 'neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD),' and we are committed to supporting use of this term in research and clinical work moving forward. However, we also emphasize that the patient population in our study had an average duration of neurologic injury or disorder of 20 years, meaning most patients in our focus group discussions would have been most familiar with and comfortable with the term neurogenic bladder. Use of the term neurogenic bladder therefore provided consistency throughout all aspects of the study, including patient data collection, analysis, and reporting. Furthermore, adjustments in terminology would have had no impact on the overall objective or results of our study, which aimed to describe experiences with urinary tract infections (UTIs) and characterize patient knowledge, perspectives, beliefs, and understanding regarding UTI diagnosis and treatment. Nor would different terminology have affected the impacts or conclusions drawn from our study.
clinical neurology,rehabilitation
What problem does this paper attempt to address?