INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Patient preparedness for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery is associated with improvements in post-operative satisfaction, symptoms and quality of life (QoL). This planned secondary analysis examined the association of patient preparedness with surgical outcomes, treatment satisfaction and quality of life. METHODS: The ValUE trial compared the effect of pre-operative urodynamic studies with a standardized office evaluation of outcomes of SUI surgery at 1 year. In addition to primary and secondary outcome measures, patient satisfaction with treatment was measured using a five-point Likert scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied) that queried subjects to rate the treatment's effect on overall incontinence, urge incontinence, SUI, and frequency. Preparedness for surgery was assessed using an 11-question Patient Preparedness Questionnaire (PPQ). RESULTS: Based on PPQ question 11, 4 out of 5 (81 %) of women reported they "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they were prepared for surgery. Selected demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in unprepared and prepared women. Among SUI severity baseline measures, total UDI score was significantly but weakly associated with preparedness (question 11 of the PPQ; Spearman's r = 0.13, p = 0.001). Although preparedness for surgery was not associated with successful outcomes, it was associated with satisfaction (r s = 0.11, p = 0.02) and larger PGI-S improvement (increase; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half (48 %) of women "strongly agreed" that they felt prepared for SUI. Women with higher pre-operative preparedness scores were more satisfied, although surgical outcomes did not differ.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Patient preparedness for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery is associated with improvements in post-operative satisfaction, symptoms and quality of life (QoL). This planned secondary analysis examined the association of patient preparedness with surgical outcomes, treatment satisfaction and quality of life. METHODS: The ValUE trial compared the effect of pre-operative urodynamic studies with a standardized office evaluation of outcomes of SUI surgery at 1 year. In addition to primary and secondary outcome measures, patient satisfaction with treatment was measured using a five-point Likert scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied) that queried subjects to rate the treatment's effect on overall incontinence, urge incontinence, SUI, and frequency. Preparedness for surgery was assessed using an 11-question Patient Preparedness Questionnaire (PPQ). RESULTS: Based on PPQ question 11, 4 out of 5 (81 %) of women reported they "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they were prepared for surgery. Selected demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in unprepared and prepared women. Among SUI severity baseline measures, total UDI score was significantly but weakly associated with preparedness (question 11 of the PPQ; Spearman's r = 0.13, p = 0.001). Although preparedness for surgery was not associated with successful outcomes, it was associated with satisfaction (r s = 0.11, p = 0.02) and larger PGI-S improvement (increase; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half (48 %) of women "strongly agreed" that they felt prepared for SUI. Women with higher pre-operative preparedness scores were more satisfied, although surgical outcomes did not differ.
Authors: Emanuel C Trabuco; Christopher J Klingele; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Deborah J Lightner; John B Gebhart Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Heather J Litman; Halina M Zyczynski; R Edward Varner; Cindy Amundsen; Larry T Sirls; Peggy A Norton; Amy M Arisco; Toby C Chai; Philippe Zimmern; Matthew D Barber; Kimberly J Dandreo; Shawn A Menefee; Kimberly Kenton; Jerry Lowder; Holly E Richter; Salil Khandwala; Ingrid Nygaard; Stephen R Kraus; Harry W Johnson; Gary E Lemack; Marina Mihova; Michael E Albo; Elizabeth Mueller; Gary Sutkin; Tracey S Wilson; Yvonne Hsu; Thomas A Rozanski; Leslie M Rickey; David Rahn; Sharon Tennstedt; John W Kusek; E Ann Gormley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Traves D Crabtree; Varun Puri; Jennifer M Bell; Nicholas Bontumasi; G Alexander Patterson; Daniel Kreisel; Alexander Sasha Krupnick; Bryan F Meyers Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Rachael Fleurence; Joe V Selby; Kara Odom-Walker; Gail Hunt; David Meltzer; Jean R Slutsky; Clyde Yancy Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Firouz Daneshgari; Heather J Litman; Kimberly J Dandreo; Larry Sirls; Gary E Lemack; Holly E Richter; Wendy Leng; Peggy Norton; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Debuene Chang; Cindy L Amundsen; Anne M Stoddard; Sharon L Tennstedt Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Eman A Elkadry; Kimberly S Kenton; Mary P FitzGerald; Susan Shott; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jessica C Sassani; Philip J Grosse; Lauren Kunkle; Lindsey Baranski; Mary F Ackenbom Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Jessica C Sassani; Amanda M Artsen; Philip J Grosse; Lindsey Baranski; Lauren Kunkle; Mary F Ackenbom Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.091