BackgroundUrological diseases and their treatment may negatively influence continence, potency, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Although current guidelines recommend HRQOL assessment in clinical urology, specific guidance on how to assess HRQOL is frequently absent. We evaluated whether and how urologists assess HRQOL and how they determine its practicality.MethodsA random sample of 4500 (from 5200 identified German urologists) was drawn and invited to participate in a postal survey (an initial letter followed by one reminder after six weeks). The questionnaire included questions on whether and how HRQOL is assessed, general attitudes towards the concept of HRQOL, and socio-demographics. Due to the exploratory character of the study we produced mainly descriptive statistics. Chi2-tests and logistic regression were used for subgroup-analysis.Results1557 urologists (85% male, with a mean age of 49 yrs.) participated. Most of them (87%) considered HRQOL assessment as ‘important’ in daily work, while only 7% reported not assessing HRQOL. Patients with prostate carcinoma, incontinence, pain, and benign prostate hyperplasia were the main target groups for HRQOL assessment. The primary aim of HRQOL assessment was to support treatment decisions, monitor patients, and produce a ‘baseline measurement’. Two-thirds of urologists used questionnaires and interviews to evaluate HRQOL and one-quarter assessed HRQOL by asking: ‘How are you?’. The main barriers to HRQOL assessment were anticipated questionnaire costs (77%), extensive questionnaire length (52%), and complex analysis (51%).ConclusionsThe majority of German urologists assess HRQOL as part of their clinical routine. However, knowledge of HRQOL assessment, analysis, and interpretation seems to be limited in this group. Therefore, urologists may benefit from a targeted education program.Trial registrationThe clinical trial was registered with the code VfD_13_003629 at the German Healthcare Research Registry (www.versorgungsforschung-deutschland.de).

Background Female urinary incontinence (UI) is common. Only scant information exists on the significance of UI for GPs’ consultations. Objectives (i) To assess the significance of female UI for GPs and to look at barriers that could be detrimental to treatment by comparing GPs from Denmark and Germany, with different health systems and access to UI guidelines. (ii) To assess whether GPs’ gender and age were relevant to the discussion of UI. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey. In the Fehmarn belt-region, a Danish–German border region, a self-developed questionnaire was sent to all the GPs (n = 930). Results In total, 407 GPs returned the questionnaire (43%); 403 questionnaires were analysed. Using a scale from 0 (never) to 10 (always), addressing UI was reported with an average score of 3.8 (SD: 2.1) among Danish and 3.5 (SD: 2.1) among German GPs. The topic was discussed more frequently with female (4.2; SD 2.2) than with male GPs (3.2; SD 2.0). Danish GPs estimated the prevalence among their female patients at 10% (SD: 8.0) and German GPs at 14% (SD: 11.2). 61% of the Danish and 19% of the German GPs used UI guidelines. German GPs significantly more often reported the barrier ‘uncertainty of how to treat UI’ [OR = 5.39 (95% CI: 2.8; 10.4)]. Conclusions In consultations with female GPs, UI was discussed significantly more frequently than with male GPs. Compared with the Danish GPs, German GPs stated significantly more uncertainties regarding UI treatment measures, and tended not to use UI guidelines.