2150 PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF VAGINAL MESH AND THE MEDIA

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Pelvic Prolapse1 Apr 20132150 PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF VAGINAL MESH AND THE MEDIA Jennifer Chamberlain, Taylor Vaughn, J.Christian Winters, Eric S. Rovner, Melissa R. Kaufman, and Michelle Koski Jennifer ChamberlainJennifer Chamberlain New Orleans, LA More articles by this author , Taylor VaughnTaylor Vaughn Charleston, SC More articles by this author , J.Christian WintersJ.Christian Winters New Orleans, LA More articles by this author , Eric S. RovnerEric S. Rovner Charleston, SC More articles by this author , Melissa R. KaufmanMelissa R. Kaufman Nashville, TN More articles by this author , and Michelle KoskiMichelle Koski Charleston, SC More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.2059AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Since the 2011 FDA communication on transvaginal mesh (TVM), there has been a rapid increase in lawsuit advertisements in various media directly marketed to patients. We have encountered patients with heightened concerns citing these ads. Through a questionnaire-based study we hoped to assess the penetrance of ads into our patient population and to assess whether exposure to these ads affects patient opinion. METHODS A 17 item multiple choice survey was designed and beginning 8/2012, was given to female patients in urology and urogynecology clinics at two academic institutions after IRB approval. New patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress incontinence (SUI) and patients who had undergone prior surgery at our institutions were excluded. We continue to accrue patients. RESULTS 78 questionnaires were completed. 53 (66.7%) of the patients had heard of TVM and of these, 33 (62%) cited such ads as the initial source of information. Regarding opinion of TVM, 1.9% chose “it is a safe product,” 7.5% “safety depends on factors related to patient,” 1.9% “not a safe product,” and 77.4% “I don't know.” 5.7% chose 2 selections and 3.8% patients chose “safety depends on the doctor”. Of those aware of TVM, 9 would consider mesh if they needed surgery for POP, 11 “no,” and 30 “maybe.” Of the “no” or “maybe” respondents- if a doctor told them they would benefit from mesh, 30.2% would change their mind, 9.4% would not, and 39.6% might. Only 11.3% indicated knowing the difference in use of TVM for POP vs. SUI. 15.1% were aware of the FDA safety communication. When asked what was the strongest influence on their opinion of TVM, responses were: advertisement, newspaper, or internet (32.1%), medical professional (26.4%), and “not sure” (28.3%). CONCLUSIONS Advertisements of TVM lawsuits have a high penetrance into our patient population. Few patients knew of the FDA communication or the difference in indication for TVM between POP and SUI. Despite this, patients indicated that they would still consider TVM, especially if advised by a physician. We must be aware of the effect of these ads on patient opinion and provide effective, unbiased, and scientifically accurate counseling of risks and benefits. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e880-e881 Peer Review Report Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jennifer Chamberlain New Orleans, LA More articles by this author Taylor Vaughn Charleston, SC More articles by this author J.Christian Winters New Orleans, LA More articles by this author Eric S. Rovner Charleston, SC More articles by this author Melissa R. Kaufman Nashville, TN More articles by this author Michelle Koski Charleston, SC More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...