Noninvasive Voiding Devices for Bedridden Women With Urinary Continence; Usability, Acceptability and Safety: A Scoping Review

BackgroundNoninvasive female urination devices are widely used for bedridden women with urinary continence, yet concerns persist about usability, dignity and safety—especially in the supine position.ObjectiveTo map and synthesise evidence on usability, acceptability and safety of noninvasive devices for supine female urination and to contextualise safety with handling/reprocessing practices.MethodsA scoping review following JBI and PRISMA-ScR used a PCC framework and comprehensive searches (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, CUIDEN; Google Scholar/OpenGrey; March 2025), plus handsearching. Records were screened in duplicate; data were charted with a piloted form and narratively synthesised by device type and experience/safety domains.ResultsTwenty-one records met inclusion criteria: 17 core device-focused studies and 4 contextual safety/handling sources. Core studies consistently reported discomfort, awkward posture, pain, embarrassment and dependence with traditional bedpans, alongside caregiver burden. Comparative evidence showed a clear preference for female urinals in eligible patients and greater acceptability for some alternative designs (e.g., disposable or inflatable variants); interventions that mobilised to the toilet or promoted respectful, skilled bedpan use were associated with reduced catheterisation. Safety findings indicated low adherence to education/reprocessing protocols and mixed signals regarding manual wiping versus automated disinfection. Contextual evidence documented persistent metal bedpan use in some health systems, wide variability in washer–disinfector/macerator availability and validation, and frequent manual emptying/rinsing—conditions linked to environmental contamination and antimicrobial-resistant organism risk.ConclusionsImproving care for bedridden women requires a dual approach: (1) woman-centred device redesign explicitly for supine use (fit, comfort, leakage control, dignity) with robust clinical validation and (2) system-level implementation that minimises manual handling and assures validated, documented reprocessing (or fit-for-purpose disposable pathways), supported by staff training, zoning, PPE and auditing.ImplicationsStandardised outcome measures for comfort, dignity, leakage and contamination proxies, along with comparative effectiveness studies in supine populations, are needed to guide safe, dignified and sustainable practice.