BACKGROUND: Continence services in the UK have developed at different rates within differing care models, resulting in scattered and inconsistent services. Consequently, questions remain about the most cost-effective method of delivering these services. AIM: To evaluate the impact of a new service led by a continence nurse practitioner compared with existing primary/secondary care provision for people with urinary incontinence and storage symptoms. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial with a 3- and 6-month follow-up in men and women (n = 3746) aged 40 years and over living in private households (intervention [n = 2958]; control [n = 788]). SETTING: Leicestershire and Rutland, UK. METHOD: The continence nurse practitioner intervention comprised a continence service provided by specially trained nurses delivering evidence-based interventions using predetermined care pathways. They delivered an 8-week primary intervention package that included advice on diet and fluids; bladder training; pelvic floor awareness and lifestyle advice. The standard care arm comprised access to existing primary care including GP and continence advisory services in the area. Outcome measures were recorded at 3 and 6 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: The percentage of individuals who improved (with at least one symptom alleviated) at 3 months was 59% in the intervention group compared with 48% in the standard care group (difference of 11%, 95% CI = 7 to 16; P<0.001) The percentage of people reporting no symptoms or 'cured' was 25% in the intervention group and 15% in the standard care group (difference of 10%, 95% CI = 6 to 13, P = 0.001). At 6 months the difference was maintained. There was a significant difference in impact scores between the two groups at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The continence nurse practitioner-led intervention reduced the symptoms of incontinence, frequency, urgency and nocturia at 3 and 6 months; impact was reduced; and satisfaction with the new service was high.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Continence services in the UK have developed at different rates within differing care models, resulting in scattered and inconsistent services. Consequently, questions remain about the most cost-effective method of delivering these services. AIM: To evaluate the impact of a new service led by a continence nurse practitioner compared with existing primary/secondary care provision for people with urinary incontinence and storage symptoms. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial with a 3- and 6-month follow-up in men and women (n = 3746) aged 40 years and over living in private households (intervention [n = 2958]; control [n = 788]). SETTING: Leicestershire and Rutland, UK. METHOD: The continence nurse practitioner intervention comprised a continence service provided by specially trained nurses delivering evidence-based interventions using predetermined care pathways. They delivered an 8-week primary intervention package that included advice on diet and fluids; bladder training; pelvic floor awareness and lifestyle advice. The standard care arm comprised access to existing primary care including GP and continence advisory services in the area. Outcome measures were recorded at 3 and 6 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: The percentage of individuals who improved (with at least one symptom alleviated) at 3 months was 59% in the intervention group compared with 48% in the standard care group (difference of 11%, 95% CI = 7 to 16; P<0.001) The percentage of people reporting no symptoms or 'cured' was 25% in the intervention group and 15% in the standard care group (difference of 10%, 95% CI = 6 to 13, P = 0.001). At 6 months the difference was maintained. There was a significant difference in impact scores between the two groups at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The continence nurse practitioner-led intervention reduced the symptoms of incontinence, frequency, urgency and nocturia at 3 and 6 months; impact was reduced; and satisfaction with the new service was high.
Authors: K S Williams; R P Assassa; N K Smith; C Jagger; S Perry; C Shaw; H Dallosso; C McGrother; M Clarke; K R Brittain; C M Castleden; C Mayne Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: S Perry; C Shaw; P Assassa; H Dallosso; K Williams; K R Brittain; F Mensah; N Smith; M Clarke; C Jagger; C Mayne; C M Castleden; J Jones; C McGrother Journal: J Public Health Med Date: 2000-09
Authors: C Shaw; R J Matthews; S I Perry; R P Assassa; K Williams; C McGrother; H Dallosso; C Jagger; C Mayne; M Clarke Journal: BJU Int Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Antonia F H Smelt; Gerda M van der Weele; Jeanet W Blom; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Willem J J Assendelft Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Kate S Williams; Dawn Coleby; Keith R Abrams; David A Turner; Christine Shaw; R Philip Assassa; Nicola J Cooper; Madeleine Mk Donaldson; Catherine W McGrother Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lois H Thomas; Caroline L Watkins; Beverley French; Christopher Sutton; Denise Forshaw; Francine Cheater; Brenda Roe; Michael J Leathley; Christopher Burton; Elaine McColl; Jo Booth Journal: Trials Date: 2011-05-20 Impact factor: 2.279