Gina Toma1,2, Alexandra Carolan3, Skye Buckner-Petty4, Laura Vargas4, Christopher Wolter3, Aqsa Khan3. 1. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, Arizona, 85054, USA. Toma.gina212@gmail.com. 2. Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Toma.gina212@gmail.com. 3. Division of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 4. Department of Research Administration, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the quantitative and qualitative components of in-person focus groups as a potential intervention for female patients with urinary incontinence. METHODS: Women over the age of 18 seeking treatment for UI were randomized to standard care with focus group participation or to standard care alone. All participants completed validated questionnaires: MESA, UDI-6, OAB-SAT-q, PGI-S, PGI-I, SQoL-F, PHQ-9, IPAQ at the beginning and conclusion of the study. Questionnaires were analyzed with repeated measures of ANOVA models in an intention-to-treat manner. Three moderated focus group sessions were held and audio recorded. Recordings were transcribed and categorized by frequency into themes using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: A total of ten control and eight intervention participants agreed to participate. Seven women attended all three focus group sessions and were included in the final analysis. Transcripts from focus group sessions observed women identified most with (1) urinary incontinence (UI) as a chronic disease, (2) shame managing UI, and (3) social constraints of toileting. Participants self-reported appreciation of focus group participation and desire for on-going sessions. Analysis of the questionnaires did not demonstrate statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: Data ascertained from questionnaires were unable to demonstrate a meaningful effect in improved treatment outcomes for control and intervention participants. Grounded theory analysis of transcripts identified four primary themes: (1) appreciation of the focus group, (2) UI as a gendered issue, (3) lack of public awareness, and (4) history of negative provider interactions. All focus group participants self-reported interest in attending future focus group sessions.
PURPOSE: To assess the quantitative and qualitative components of in-person focus groups as a potential intervention for female patients with urinary incontinence. METHODS: Women over the age of 18 seeking treatment for UI were randomized to standard care with focus group participation or to standard care alone. All participants completed validated questionnaires: MESA, UDI-6, OAB-SAT-q, PGI-S, PGI-I, SQoL-F, PHQ-9, IPAQ at the beginning and conclusion of the study. Questionnaires were analyzed with repeated measures of ANOVA models in an intention-to-treat manner. Three moderated focus group sessions were held and audio recorded. Recordings were transcribed and categorized by frequency into themes using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: A total of ten control and eight intervention participants agreed to participate. Seven women attended all three focus group sessions and were included in the final analysis. Transcripts from focus group sessions observed women identified most with (1) urinary incontinence (UI) as a chronic disease, (2) shame managing UI, and (3) social constraints of toileting. Participants self-reported appreciation of focus group participation and desire for on-going sessions. Analysis of the questionnaires did not demonstrate statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: Data ascertained from questionnaires were unable to demonstrate a meaningful effect in improved treatment outcomes for control and intervention participants. Grounded theory analysis of transcripts identified four primary themes: (1) appreciation of the focus group, (2) UI as a gendered issue, (3) lack of public awareness, and (4) history of negative provider interactions. All focus group participants self-reported interest in attending future focus group sessions.
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Camille P Vaughan; Patricia S Goode; David T Redden; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Alayne D Markland Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.661