Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Effectiveness of continence promotion for older women via community organisations: a cluster randomised trial.



Key Questions Addressed
1 KQ 1: What are the benefits and harms of nonpharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other? KQ 2: What are the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other? KQ 3: What are the comparative benefits and harms of nonpharmacological versus pharmacological treatments of UI in women? KQ 4: What are the benefits and harms of combined nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatment of UI in women?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Effectiveness of continence promotion for older women via community organisations: a cluster randomised trial.
Author Tannenbaum C., Agnew R., Benedetti A., Thomas D., van den Heuvel E.
Country Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Year 2013
Numbers Pubmed ID: 24334159

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Continence education
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Self-management training
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 Continence education + Self-management
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
4 Control
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries UK
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria women aged 60 years and older who reported urinary incontinence at least once weekly and who were not under active treatment for incontinence.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria none
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type 30
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
19
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
46
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age 71.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
7.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
259
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race 259
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did participants fail previous treatment? Not reported/unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years 2010-2012
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial name (if given)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper cite a previous paper from the same study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Continence education Self-management training Continence education + Self-management Control Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 64 70 61 64
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
59 62 55 52
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
5 8 6 12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Bladder control, subjective      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Continence education Self-management training Continence education + Self-management Control Comparison Measure Continence education vs. Control Self-management training vs. Control Continence education + Self-management vs. Control


3 months

N Analyzed 64 70 61 64 Odds Ratio (OR) 9.14 2.71 17.63
Counts 38 33 40 7 95% CI low 3.05 0.87 5.09
95% CI high 27.37 8.41 61.13
Adjusted For: age, living alone, depression, heart disease, falls, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, educational status, general health perception and baseline incontinence severity score. age, living alone, depression, heart disease, falls, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, educational status, general health perception and baseline incontinence severity score. age, living alone, depression, heart disease, falls, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, educational status, general health perception and baseline incontinence severity score.
Outcome: Bladder control, subjective      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Continence education Self-management training Continence education + Self-management Control Comparison Measure Continence education vs. Control Self-management training vs. Control Continence education + Self-management vs. Control


3 months

N Analyzed 64 70 61 64 Odds Ratio (OR) 2.83 1.81 4.94
Counts 14 15 18 4 95% CI low 0.59 0.50 1.45
95% CI high 13.66 6.60 16.86
Adjusted For: age, living alone, depression, heart disease, falls, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, educational status, general health perception and baseline incontinence severity score. age, living alone, depression, heart disease, falls, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, educational status, general health perception and baseline incontinence severity score. age, living alone, depression, heart disease, falls, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, educational status, general health perception and baseline incontinence severity score.


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:.....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment Unclear RoB not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Blinding of PATIENTS High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Intention-to-treat-analysis Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS (or "DOUBLE BLIND") High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Incomplete results data (attrition bias) Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Group similarity at baseline (selection bias) Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Compliance with interventions Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS.....Patients in different intervention groups selected in an equivalent manner
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS....Baseline differences between groups accounted for (Adjusted analysis)?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Other issues
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.