Development and Validation of the Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No validated English language patient-reported outcome (PRO) currently exists that assesses satisfaction with inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Satisfaction data have been largely based primarily on surgeon assessment of patients or using questionnaires that have not been designed for this purpose. AIM: To develop an English-language validated PRO that assesses patient satisfaction after IPP surgery. METHODS: Initially, a literature review and discussions with experts defined domains important to IPP satisfaction (pain, appearance, function, overall satisfaction). The initial 35-item Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI) was developed. Cognitive interviews were then performed with IPP patients (n = 12) to gain feedback on the SSIPI domains and items. These data were used to modify SSIPI with the addition of 2 questions for a final item number of 37. Patients from 4 centers, who were between 6 months and 5 years after IPP, were administered the questionnaire through RedCap. Reliability statistics and content analysis were used to winnow questions to yield the final 16-item version of the SSIPI. Internal consistency was assessed via Cronbach's alpha and item-total correlation. Test-retest reliability was assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients using baseline and 2-week data. For convergent validity, the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction and the Self-Esteem and Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire were used. For discriminant validity, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was used. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure of the SSIPI. OUTCOMES: Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and confirmatory factor analysis were assessed. RESULTS: 118 men were surveyed. Mean age was 66.8 ± 9.5 years. The 16-item SSIPI showed high internal consistency with an overall Cronbach's Alpha of 0.97 (domains 0.85-0.89). Item-total correlations for individual items to subscales ranged from 0.60 to 0.91. The overall test-retest reliability was 0.94 (domains 0.87-0.93). Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction and Self-Esteem and Relationship had correlations of 0.84 overall (domains 0.57-0.79) and 0.47 overall (domains 0.34-0.44), respectively. International Prostate Symptom Score (discriminant validity) had correlations of -0.29 overall (domains -0.17 to -0.31). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: SSIPI is the first English-language validated IPP satisfaction PRO. This will enable clinicians to collect satisfaction data in a standardized way. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: As strengths we have used a rigorous psychometric process and have no industry sponsorship. Limitations include small numbers of specific subpopulations. CONCLUSION: The SSIPI has demonstrated robust psychometric properties. Salter CA, Bach PV, Jenkins L, et al. Development and Validation of the Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI). J Sex Med 2021;18:1641-1651.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".