| Literature DB >> 29222718 |
Emma Nyström1, Ina Asklund2, Malin Sjöström2, Hans Stenlund3, Eva Samuelsson3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Stress urinary incontinence is common among women. First-line treatment includes pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and lifestyle advice, which can be provided via a mobile app. The efficacy of app-based treatment has been demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In this study, we aimed to analyze factors associated with successful treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Mobile applications; Pelvic floor muscle training; Self-management; Stress urinary incontinence
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29222718 PMCID: PMC6132677 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3514-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J ISSN: 0937-3462 Impact factor: 2.894
Fig. 1Data collected at inclusion and follow-up and features of the mobile app for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. ICIQ-UI SF International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire—Urinary Incontinence Short Form, ICIQ-LUTSqol International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire—Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life, IEF incontinence episode frequency, PFMT pelvic floor muscle training, SUI stress urinary incontinence, PGI-I Patient Global Impression on Improvement
Baseline characteristics of women (n = 61) who received treatment for SUI via a mobile app with a focus on pelvic floor muscle training
| Characteristic | Data |
|---|---|
| Demographics | |
| Age in years, mean (SD) | 44.7 (9.7) |
| Education, | |
| No higher education | 6 (9.8) |
| University studies <3 years | 4 (6.6) |
| University studies ≥3 years | 51 (83.6) |
| Lifestyle | |
| Daily smoking, | 2 (3.3) |
| Body mass index kg/m2, mean (SD) | 24.0 (4.1) |
| Physical activity in leisure time, | |
| Sedentary leisure time | 1 (1.6) |
| Moderate activity but without perspiration (e.g., walking) | 17 (27.9) |
| Regular exercise 1–2 times/week (e.g., jogging, swimming) | 18 (29.5) |
| Regular exercise ≥3 times/week | 25 (41.0) |
| Smartphone use | |
| Smartphone type, | |
| iOS users | 40 (65.6) |
| Android users | 21 (34.4) |
| Use of smartphone to find health information, | |
| Never | 9 (14.8) |
| Occasionally, but not weekly | 29 (47.5) |
| Weekly | 23 (37.7) |
| Gynecology | |
| Parity, | |
| Nulliparous | 5 (8.2) |
| Uniparous | 11 (18.0) |
| Multiparous | 45 (73.8) |
| Postmenopausal, | 10 (16.4) |
| Incontinence | |
| Previously sought medical care for incontinence, | 26 (42.6) |
| ICIQ-UI SF score, mean (SD) | 11.1 (3.0) |
| Incontinence episode frequency per week, median (range) | 21.0 (0.0–73.5) |
| Daily pad use, | 13 (21.3) |
| Expectations about treatment, | |
| To be completely free of leakage | 13 (21.3) |
| To be very much improved | 27 (44.3) |
| To be much improved | 21 (34.4) |
| To be a little improved | 0 (0) |
| To experience no change | 0 (0) |
SUI stress urinary incontinence, PFMT pelvic floor muscle training, SD standard deviation, ICIQ-UI SF International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire—Urinary Incontinence Short Form
Fig. 2Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) at 3-month follow-up and definition of successful outcome after treatment for stress urinary incontinence
Univariate analysis of baseline factors
| Factors possibly associated with success | Successfula | Not successfula |
| Crude OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline demographics | ||||
| Age, years | 43.79 (SD 9.68) | 45.93 (SD 9.85) | 0.395 | 0.98 (0.93–1.03) |
| Education | ||||
| No higher education or university studies <3 years | 6 (17.6%) | 4 (14.8%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| University studies ≥3 years | 28 (82.4%) | 23 (85.2%) | 0.767 | 0.81 (0.20–3.23) |
| Lifestyle | ||||
| Tea consumption | ||||
| ≥ 3 cups/day | 2 (5.9%) | 8 (29.6%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| < 3 cups/day | 32 (94.1%) | 19 (70.4%) |
|
|
| Coffee consumption | ||||
| ≥ 3 cups/day | 17 (50.0%) | 15 (55.6%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| < 3 cups/day | 17 (50.0%) | 12 (44.4%) | 0.666 | 1.25 (0.45–3.45) |
| Body mass index | 23.99 (SD 3.65) | 24.03 (SD 4.73) | 0.974 | 1.00 (0.88–1.13) |
| Physical activity | ||||
| Regular exercise ≥3 times/week | 11 (32.4%) | 14 (51.9%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| Sedentary lifestyle or modest exercise <3 times/week | 23 (67.6%) | 13 (48.1%) |
|
|
| Baseline incontinence characteristics | ||||
| ICIQ-UI SF total score at baseline | 11.18 (SD 3.15) | 11.11 (SD 2.89) | 0.927 | 1.01 (0.85–1.20) |
| Pad use | ||||
| Daily | 5 (14.7%) | 8 (29.6%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| Weekly | 17 (50.0%) | 13 (48.1%) | 0.277 | 2.09 (0.55–7.91) |
| More seldom | 12 (35.3%) | 6 (22.2%) |
|
|
| Expectations of treatment | ||||
| To be much improved | 7 (20.6%) | 14 (51.9%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| To be very much improved/completely free of leakage | 27 (79.4%) | 13 (48.1%) |
|
|
CI Confidence Interval, ICIQ-UI SF International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire – Urinary Incontinence Short Form, OR odds ratio, SD standard deviation
*Based on univariate logistic regression. Significant (p < 0.05) and borderline significant (p < 0.20) associations are written in italics
aMeans (SD) are presented if the variable has been analyzed as a continuous variable and numbers (%) if categorized or dichotomized
Univariate analysis of factors at the 3-month follow-up
| Factors possibly associated with success | Successfulb | Not successfulb |
| Crude OR (95% CI)* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight change (per kg gained) | −0.29 (SD 1.70) | 1.22 (SD 2.72) |
|
|
| Exercise frequency, times/weeka | 11.47 (4.89)a | 11.82 (8.06)a | 0.844 | 0.99 (0.91–1.08) |
| Exercise amount, contractions/daya | ||||
| < 15 | 11 (32.4%) | 12 (44.4%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| 15–29 | 14 (41.2%) | 6 (22.2%) |
|
|
| 30–44 | 4 (11.8%) | 4 (14.8%) | 0.916 | 1.09 (0.22–5.45) |
| ≥ 45 | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.7%) | 1.000 | 0.00 |
| PFMT frequency last treatment month | ||||
| Never/sporadic | 4 (11.8%) | 6 (22.2%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| Weekly | 14 (41.2%) | 12 (44.4%) | 0.459 | 1.75 (0.40–7.70) |
| Daily | 16 (47.1%) | 9 (33.3%) | 0.202 | 2.67 (0.59–12.02) |
| Self-rated improvement in pelvic floor muscle strength | ||||
| Unchanged/a little better | 10 (29.4%) | 22 (81.5%) | Reference | 1.0 |
| Much better | 24 (70.6%) | 5 (18.5%) |
|
|
CI Confidence Interval, OR odds ratio, PFMT pelvic floor muscle training, SD standard deviation
*Based on the univariate logistic regression. Significant (p < 0.05) and borderline significant (p < 0.20) associations are written in italics
aBased on the statistics function (n = 37)
bMeans (SD) are presented if the variable has been analyzed as a continuous variable and numbers (%) if categorized or dichotomized
Adjusted OR for predictors of success
| Significant factors in the multivariate model (reference category) |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI)* |
|---|---|---|
| Expectations of treatment (to be much improved) | ||
| To be very much improved/completely free of leakage | 0.006 | 11.38 (2.02–64.19) |
| Weight change (per kg gained) | 0.006 | 0.44 (0.24–0.79) |
| Self-rated pelvic floor muscle strength (unchanged/a little better) | ||
| Much better | <0.001 | 35.54 (4.96–254.61) |
CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio
*Results from the multivariate logistic regression model: p < 0.05 was considered significant