Els Visser1, Geertruida H de Bock2, Embert J Messelink3, Aaltje J Schram4, Boudewijn J Kollen5, Sacha la Bastide-van Gemert6, Edwin R van den Heuvel7, Marjolein Y Berger8, Janny H Dekker9. 1. Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: els.visser@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: g.h.de.bock@umcg.nl. 3. Department of Urology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.j.messelink@umcg.nl. 4. Department of Gynaecology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.j.schram@umcg.bnl. 5. Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: b.j.kollen@umcg.nl. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.la.bastide@umcg.nl. 7. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.r.van.den.heuvel@umcg.nl. 8. Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.y.berger@umcg.nl. 9. Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.h.dekker@umcg.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The URINO trial investigated the effect of offering treatment to older women with urinary incontinence in the general population, who had not sought help on their own initiative. STUDY DESIGN: In a cluster randomized trial, 14 general practitioners were matched into pairs and randomly allocated to an intervention or a control group. Women aged ≥ 55 years registered in the participating practices were asked about urinary incontinence via a postal questionnaire. Patients in the intervention group were assessed and treated whereas patients in the control group received standard care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was improvement (yes or no) of the severity of symptoms at 12-month follow-up measured with the Incontinence Severity Index. Secondary outcomes were the number of incontinence episodes per day and quality of life. The primary analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis with multiple imputation of missing data. A logistic regression model with correction for cluster randomization was fitted to estimate odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: At 12 months, the severity of symptoms had improved in more patients in the intervention group (n166) than in the controls (n184) (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.3). Also, the number of patients with fewer episodes of incontinence had increased (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.5-4.1). No between-group differences in changes in quality of life were apparent (p0.14). CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended to encourage women in the general population aged ≥ 55 years with urinary incontinence to undergo diagnosis and treatment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The URINO trial investigated the effect of offering treatment to older women with urinary incontinence in the general population, who had not sought help on their own initiative. STUDY DESIGN: In a cluster randomized trial, 14 general practitioners were matched into pairs and randomly allocated to an intervention or a control group. Women aged ≥ 55 years registered in the participating practices were asked about urinary incontinence via a postal questionnaire. Patients in the intervention group were assessed and treated whereas patients in the control group received standard care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was improvement (yes or no) of the severity of symptoms at 12-month follow-up measured with the Incontinence Severity Index. Secondary outcomes were the number of incontinence episodes per day and quality of life. The primary analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis with multiple imputation of missing data. A logistic regression model with correction for cluster randomization was fitted to estimate odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: At 12 months, the severity of symptoms had improved in more patients in the intervention group (n166) than in the controls (n184) (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.3). Also, the number of patients with fewer episodes of incontinence had increased (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.5-4.1). No between-group differences in changes in quality of life were apparent (p0.14). CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended to encourage women in the general population aged ≥ 55 years with urinary incontinence to undergo diagnosis and treatment.
Authors: Geraldine G Gabriel; Ross T Tsuyuki; Adrian Wagg; Kathleen Hunter; Cara Tannenbaum; Cheryl A Sadowski Journal: Can Pharm J (Ott) Date: 2015-09
Authors: Aaltje P D Jansen; Maaike E Muntinga; Judith E Bosmans; Bary Berghmans; Janny Dekker; Jacqueline Hugtenburgh; Giel Nijpels; Paul van Houten; Miranda G H Laurant; Huub C H van der Vaart Journal: BMC Nurs Date: 2017-02-22