Evidence Hub

Randomised controlled trial of nurse continence advisor therapy compared with standard urogynaecology regimen for conservative incontinence treatment: efficacy, costs and two year follow up

Moore KH, O'Sullivan RJ, Simons A, Prashar S, Anderson P, Louey M

BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2003

110 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and labour costs of nurse continence advisors and urogynaecologists in conservative management of urinary incontinence.

DESIGN: Single centre randomised controlled trial of patients with mild or moderate leakage.

SETTING: Tertiary urogynaecology unit.

SAMPLE: One hundred and forty-five consecutive patients with stress and/or urge incontinence.

METHODS: Standardised conservative therapy regimens, provided by nurse continence advisors and urogynaecologists.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: One-hour pad test, frequency volume charts, a 20-point incontinence score and two quality of life tests, staff treatment times and costs.

RESULTS: Of 110 women who completed 12-week treatments, 64% of the women in the nurse continence advisor group (n = 58) and 52% of women treated by urogynaecologists (n = 52) were asymptomatic (dry pad test; OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.71-3.75). There was no significant difference between clinician groups for change in pad test result (P = 0.71), voids/day (0.43), incontinence score (P = 0.57) or quality of life scores (urogenital distress inventory, P = 0.27; Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, P = 0.41). Despite the expected longer consultation times for the advisor group (median 160 min, interquartile range [IQR] 130-210) versus the urogynaecologist group (median 90 min, IQR 60-120), the per capita labour cost for advisor treatment (median AU$59.20, IQR 48.10-77.70) was lower than for treatment given by urogynaecologists (median cost AU$…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 110 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free