ArticleBMJ open2022
Effectiveness and costs of a new framework for selecting absorbent urinary incontinence products compared with current practice: a cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo improve continence care in the Netherlands, a new framework has been developed in which a shift has been made from incontinence severity as the sole criterion for selecting incontinence products to a focus on patient need for daily life activities. The impact of the framework on daily care has not been assessed. We aimed to compare treatment effectiveness and costs between participants who did and did not undergo re-evaluation according to the new framework.
designCohort study
settingTwelve pharmacies in the Netherlands
participantsExisting users of absorbent incontinence materials for urinary incontinence.
interventionsParticipants were offered the option to have their incontinence products re-evaluated within the new framework at their pharmacy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness and cost outcomes were assessed at 3 and 6 months through questionnaires. These questionnaires included the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life Module, ICIQ Urinary Incontinence Short Form, ICIQ Absorbent Pads, questions about satisfaction and the iPCQ and iMCQ.
results303 users consented and 279 completed the baseline questionnaire. Of these participants, 72 agreed to a re-evaluation of their incontinence materials. There was a small improvement at 3 months in the re-evaluation group compared with the other group on most outcomes. However, these improvements were not clinically relevant. Moreover, these differences did not change much from 3 to 6 months. Small differences were also observed in the changes in costs, but with very wide CIs on both sides of zero (€99.38; 95% CI -633.48 to 832.23).
conclusionsThe current study showed no clinically relevant effect of a newly implemented framework for selecting incontinence materials in pharmacies when compared with an existing method. Given that the study also showed no differences in effectiveness and costs, introducing the new framework in pharmacies may not lead to better incontinence care.
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.