Jolanda M. L. G. Gehlen
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Jolanda M. L. G. Gehlen has a total of 21 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ben C. Knipscheer
Department of Urology, Treant Zorggroep, 7824 AA Emmen, The Netherlands
1 shared publication - Carl J. Wijburg
Department of Urology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands
1 shared publication - Cathelijne M. P. Ziedses Des Plantes
Zilveren Kruis, 3833 LB Leusden, The Netherlands
1 shared publication - Daphne Luijendijk-De Bruin
Department of Urology, Martini Hospital, 9728 NT Groningen, The Netherlands
1 shared publication - Diederik J. H. Baas
Department of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
1 shared publication - Diederik M. Somford
Department of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
Validation of Claims Data for Absorbing Pads as a Measure for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy, a National Cross-Sectional Analysis
The use of healthcare insurance claims data for urinary incontinence (UI) pads has the potential to serve as an objective measure for assessing post-radical prostatectomy UI rates, but its validity for this purpose has not been established. The aim of this study is to correlate claims data with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for UI pad use. Patients who underwent RP in the Netherlands between September 2019 and February 2020 were included. Incontinence was defined as the daily use of ≥1 pad(s). Claims data for UI pads at 12–15 months after RP were extracted from a nationwide healthcare insurance database in the Netherlands. Participating hospitals provided PROMS data. In total, 1624 patients underwent RP. Corresponding data of 845 patients was provided by nine participating hospitals, of which 416 patients were matched with complete PROMs data. Claims data and PROMs showed 31% and 45% post-RP UI (≥1 pads). UI according to claims data compared with PROMs had a sensitivity of 62%, specificity of 96%, PPV of 92%, NPV of 75% and accuracy of 81%. The agreement between both methods was moderate (κ = 0.60). Claims data for pads moderately align with PROMs in assessing post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and could be considered as a conservative quality indicator.
Open AccessValidation of Claims Data for Absorbing Pads as a Measure for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy, a National Cross-Sectional Analysis
The use of healthcare insurance claims data for urinary incontinence (UI) pads has the potential to serve as an objective measure for assessing post-radical prostatectomy UI rates, but its validity for this purpose has not been established. The aim of this study is to correlate claims data with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for UI pad use. Patients who underwent RP in the Netherlands between September 2019 and February 2020 were included. Incontinence was defined as the daily use of ≥1 pad(s). Claims data for UI pads at 12–15 months after RP were extracted from a nationwide healthcare insurance database in the Netherlands. Participating hospitals provided PROMS data. In total, 1624 patients underwent RP. Corresponding data of 845 patients was provided by nine participating hospitals, of which 416 patients were matched with complete PROMs data. Claims data and PROMs showed 31% and 45% post-RP UI (≥1 pads). UI according to claims data compared with PROMs had a sensitivity of 62%, specificity of 96%, PPV of 92%, NPV of 75% and accuracy of 81%. The agreement between both methods was moderate (κ = 0.60). Claims data for pads moderately align with PROMs in assessing post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and could be considered as a conservative quality indicator.