| Literature DB >> 32695435 |
K Gillian Campbell1, Mark E Batt2, Avril Drummond1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects up to 40% of adult women within the UK, and pelvic floor muscle training can be effective as a treatment. The prevalence of UI is higher in athletic women than in their sedentary counterparts, but there is little research into reasons for this or into treatment within this population.The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of conducting a future randomised controlled trial of physiotherapeutic management of UI in athletic women.Entities:
Keywords: Athletes; Pelvic floor muscle training; Physiotherapy; Urinary incontinence
Year: 2020 PMID: 32695435 PMCID: PMC7366300 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-020-00638-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud ISSN: 2055-5784
Table to illustrate criteria for progression from feasibility study to a definitive trial
| Progression criteria | Measurement | Green | Amber | Red |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recruitment | Number of participants recruited within 6 months | 15–20 | 10–15 | < 10 |
| Eligibility | Proportion of those screened that are eligible | > 75% screened are eligible | Minor changes to eligibility criteria would increase the number to > 75% | Majority of those screened are ineligible or changes to inclusion criteria required would prohibit meaningful results |
| Initial consent | Proportion of eligible participants who consent | > 70% | 50–69% | < 50% |
| Consent to intimate examination | Proportion of those enrolled who consent to intimate examination of PFM | > 70% | 50–69 % | < 50% |
| Attendance | Number of scheduled appointments attended by participants | > 75% | 50–75% | < 50% |
| Data completion | Follow-up questionnaire collected at 3-month review | > 75% | 50–75% | < 50% |
| Follow-up questionnaires collected at 6-month review | > 60% | 30–60% | <30% | |
| Recruitment process | Qualitative process evaluation | Most participants find the recruitment process acceptable or minor changes requested | Participants views on acceptability conflicting or larger changes required | Most participants find the recruitment process unacceptable or the changes required are unrealistic |
| Acceptability of intervention | Qualitative process evaluation | Most participants find the intervention acceptable or would request only minor alterations | Views on acceptability conflicting or major revisions needed | Most participants find the intervention unacceptable or changes required are not feasible |
| Acceptability of outcome measures | Qualitative process evaluation | Most participants find the questionnaires acceptable or would request only minor alterations | Views on acceptability conflicting or major revisions needed | Most participants find the questionnaires unacceptable or changes required are not feasible |
| Choice of venue | Qualitative process evaluation | Most participants find the venue acceptable or would request only minor alterations | Views on acceptability conflicting or major revisions needed | Most participants find the venue unacceptable or changes required are not feasible |
| Use of Squeezy App | Qualitative process evaluation | Most participants find use of a smartphone app easy and beneficial as a reminder for PFMT | Fewer than half find use of a smartphone app beneficial | Most participants find use of a smartphone app not helpful or easy to use |
| Acceptability of being randomised in a future trial | Qualitative process evaluation | Most participants would accept being randomised for interventions in a future trial | Most would accept being randomised for interventions if there was an option to receive the intervention post RCT | Most participants would not accept being part of a control group in an RCT |
This table has been adapted from Pitt et al. 2020 [27]
Fig. 1Flow chart of participants’ progress through phase 2