Trial reportBMC women's health2009
Group versus individual sessions delivered by a physiotherapist for female urinary incontinence: an interview study with women attending group sessions nested within a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC women's health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' Perceptions of Stress Urinary Incontinence Treatment: A Scoping Review of Qualitative Studies.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Prevalence of urinary incontinence in postpartum women and physiotherapy interventions applied: An integrative review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Review
- A meta-ethnography to understand the experience of living with urinary incontinence: 'is it just part and parcel of life?'BMC urology · 2020Article
- Knowledge of pelvic floor problems: a study of third trimester, primiparous women.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim was to explore the concerns and expectations of women invited to attend group physiotherapy sessions for the management of female urinary incontinence and whether the experience changed their views; and to gather recommendations from women attending group sessions on the design and delivery of these sessions
methodsAn interview study nested within a randomised controlled trial in five British NHS physiotherapy departments, including 22 women who had expressed a preference for an individual physiotherapy session but were randomised to, and attended, group sessions.
resultsEmbarrassment was woven throughout women's accounts of experiencing urinary incontinence and seeking health care. Uncertainty about the nature of group sessions was a source of concern. Attending the first session was seen as a big hurdle by many women. However, a sense of relief was common once the session started, with most women describing some benefit from attendance. Recommendations for design and delivery of the sessions from women focused on reducing embarrassment and uncertainty prior to attendance.
conclusionTaking account of women's embarrassment and providing detailed information about the content of group sessions will enable women to benefit from group physiotherapy sessions for the management of female urinary incontinence.
trial registrationTRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 16772662.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.