Search

To assess the cost-effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared with care-as-usual in Dutch primary care.A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months.Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment.The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g. reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI.Costs and cost-effectiveness and -utility were assessed from a societal perspective, based on incontinence impact adjusted life years (IIALYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and medical, non-medical and productivity costs. Information on costs was obtained with the iMCQ and iPCQ questionnaires (medical consumption and productivity cost questionnaires).In all, 262 women were andomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended follow-up, respectively. Costs were lower for app-based treatment with € -161 (95% confidence interval [CI -180 to -151) per year. Cost-effectiveness showed small mean differences in effect for IIALY (0.04) and QALY (-0.03) and thus larger incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER: -€3696) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR: €6379).App-based treatment is a cost-effective alternative to care-as-usual for women with UI in Dutch primary care.App-treatment for female urinary incontinence cost-effective compared to care-as-usual in general practice after 12 months.

Introduction and hypothesis : Health care professionals (HCP) can reveal practical recommendations to improve processes and address challenges in the care of women with urinary incontinence (UI) in the Netherlands.Methods : We conducted an exploratory, sequential, mixed-methods study among HCPs, using the outcomes of six focus group sessions (30 HCPs) to inform a subsequent survey. HCPs included general practitioners (GPs), practice assistants (PAs), pelvic physiotherapists (PPTs), and urologists and gynecologists (UGs).Results : The main themes arising from the six focus group sessions (with 6 GPs, 7 PAs, 6 (resident) UGs, 8 PPTs, and 7 PPTs) were “identification of UI,” “current state of care,” and “guiding patients through the healthcare system.” The survey respondents included 351 PAs, 124 GPs, 75 PPTs, and 183 UGs. Of these 741 respondents, 72.8% (strongly) agreed that the identification of UI in general practice required improvement and 60% confirmed the need for further education on this topic. Most HCPs (83.1%) found it useful to offer women a patient information leaflet when buying incontinence products, but less useful to ask about UI routinely in specific scenarios, and most (75%) agreed that a multidisciplinary guideline could improve healthcare. Interestingly, 86% of PPTs and 21% of UGs advocated referral to a PPT before referral to a specialist, while 87% of PPTs wanted primary care services to offer a UI consultation hour and 36% of the GPs (strongly) disagreed.Conclusion : Poor UI identification in primary care and a lack of patient guidance through the health care system hamper continence care provision.

Objective: To explore the views and preferences of care providers on app use for the treatment of UI and to identify the anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation.Patients and Methods: We performed an exploratory, two-phase, sequential mixed-methods study. In phase 1, the views of care providers were explored through five focus group sessions with care providers involved in UI: general practitioners (GPs), practice assistants (PAs), pelvic physical therapists (PPTs), and urologists and (uro)gynecologists (UGs). In phase 2, the identified themes and subthemes were quantified in an online survey distributed among different care providers matching these groups.Results: In the focus group sessions, 30 female and two male care providers participated. Survey participants included 351 PAs and 76 PPTs (all females) next to 124 GPs and 183 UGs (70% females). Caregivers generally considered UI treatment apps as having a supportive role, being less convinced about their advantages in the absence of a care provider. Whereas most PPTs (89%) and the majority of participants overall (56%) agreed that app use should be supervised, most GPs considered apps to be suitable alternatives for women who do not visit a care provider. Additionally, caregivers required that the effectiveness of an app should be proven first, and that privacy and safety should be ensured. Contrasting with other research, lack of time and financial compensation were not considered important barriers to implementation. Although care providers shared a positive view of app use for UI treatment, most never to seldom referred their patients to existing tools.Conclusion: Our results add to the existing knowledge about eHealth-related barriers and facilitators. These findings can be used to optimize implementation strategies for other apps and to enhance the uptake of app-based treatment for UI in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency, or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared to care-as-usual in primary care.DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.SETTING: Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months.POPULATION: Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment. 262 women randomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended one year follow-up.INTERVENTIONS: The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g., reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness assessed by the change in symptom severity score (ICIQ-UI-SF) and the change in quality of life (ICIQ-LUTS-QoL) with linear regression on an intention-to-treat basis.RESULTS: Clinically relevant improvement of UI severity for both app (-2.17 ± 2.81) and care-as-usual (-3.43 ± 3.6), with a non-significant mean difference of 0.903 (-0.66 to 1.871).CONCLUSION: App-based treatment is a viable alternative to care-as-usual for UI in primary care in terms of effectiveness after one year.