ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Enhancing Recruitment in Urinary Incontinence Care: Insights from the EvidenceNOW Managing Urinary Incontinence Initiative.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisUrinary incontinence (UI) affects over half of adult women but is widely underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care due to stigma, normalization, and limited routine screening. Identifying effective recruitment strategies is essential to improving UI care in these settings.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with grantee leaders and practice facilitators (n = 32), site visits and virtual interviews with providers and staff (n = 47) and collected quarterly quantitative recruitment and retention data from five grantees participating in a nationwide UI initiative. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Quantitative data, including 1950 enrolled practices and 134,852 screened patients, were summarized with descriptive statistics.
resultsNo single recruitment strategy was universally effective. All grantees utilized approaches such as leveraging professional relationships, engaging practice facilitators, and conducting in-person meetings, which were consistently linked to higher practice and provider recruitment. Leadership engagement facilitated recruitment success, while use of incentives and broad outreach alone were insufficient. Patient recruitment was most successful when UI screening was embedded in routine intake workflows. Across all grantees, 21% of screened patients tested positive for UI. Recruitment challenges included approval delays in large systems and increased workload related to integrating screening into routine care.
conclusionsSuccessful UI intervention recruitment in primary care requires combining leadership support, workflow integration, and tailored approaches. Limitations include reliance on aggregate data and absence of patient-reported perspectives or subgroup analyses. Future research should further investigate strategies to advance equitable UI care delivery.
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.