Stéphanie Bernard1,2, Sabrina Boucher2, Linda McLean3, Hélène Moffet4,5. 1. Département de Réadaptation, Faculté de Médecine, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, Université Laval, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Québec, QC, Canada. 2. Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (CIRRIS), Québec, Canada. 3. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 4. Département de Réadaptation, Faculté de Médecine, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, Université Laval, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Québec, QC, Canada. helene.moffet@rea.ulaval.ca. 5. Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (CIRRIS), Québec, Canada. helene.moffet@rea.ulaval.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to appraise the current use of mobile technologies for the conservative self-management of urinary incontinence (UI). Moreover, we aimed to explore whether they integrate recommended features for the use of mobile technologies in healthcare and recognized parameters for optimal conservative UI treatment. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, REHABDATA, Cochrane Library and PEDro databases. Eligible articles included people with UI of any type and use of a mobile technology for the conservative self-management of UI. Two reviewers independently screened, reviewed, and extracted data on study design, type of mobile technologies, valuable features, and outcomes related to UI. RESULTS: Twelve articles (level of evidence II to V) were retained. Technologies used were a mobile app alone (n = 2), a Pelvic Floor Muscle Training (PFMT) device and app (n = 2), a PFMT device and telerehabilitation (n = 1), a smartphone messaging system (n = 1), and an internet-based program (n = 1). PFMT programs prescribed a daily frequency for at least 8 weeks. Between 1 and 4 valuable features were reported out of 6 identified. After intervention, at least 1 outcome on UI severity was reported improved in 6/7 studies, satisfaction was high in 3/3 studies and adherence was high (daily usage) in 4/5 studies. CONCLUSION: There is level 2 evidence that there are benefits of using mobile technologies in terms of improvements in UI, satisfaction, adherence, and costs. Mobile technologies reviewed seem to follow optimal PFMT parameters, but users could benefit further from more built-in features that may optimize rehabilitation outcomes.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to appraise the current use of mobile technologies for the conservative self-management of urinary incontinence (UI). Moreover, we aimed to explore whether they integrate recommended features for the use of mobile technologies in healthcare and recognized parameters for optimal conservative UI treatment. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, REHABDATA, Cochrane Library and PEDro databases. Eligible articles included people with UI of any type and use of a mobile technology for the conservative self-management of UI. Two reviewers independently screened, reviewed, and extracted data on study design, type of mobile technologies, valuable features, and outcomes related to UI. RESULTS: Twelve articles (level of evidence II to V) were retained. Technologies used were a mobile app alone (n = 2), a Pelvic Floor Muscle Training (PFMT) device and app (n = 2), a PFMT device and telerehabilitation (n = 1), a smartphone messaging system (n = 1), and an internet-based program (n = 1). PFMT programs prescribed a daily frequency for at least 8 weeks. Between 1 and 4 valuable features were reported out of 6 identified. After intervention, at least 1 outcome on UI severity was reported improved in 6/7 studies, satisfaction was high in 3/3 studies and adherence was high (daily usage) in 4/5 studies. CONCLUSION: There is level 2 evidence that there are benefits of using mobile technologies in terms of improvements in UI, satisfaction, adherence, and costs. Mobile technologies reviewed seem to follow optimal PFMT parameters, but users could benefit further from more built-in features that may optimize rehabilitation outcomes.
Authors: Jessica L McKinney; Laura E Keyser; Samantha J Pulliam; Tanaz R Ferzandi Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Lotte Firet; Theodora Alberta Maria Teunissen; Rudolf Bertijn Kool; Lukas van Doorn; Manal Aourag; Antoinette Leonarda Maria Lagro-Janssen; Willem Jan Jozef Assendelft Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 2.655