Search

Introduction and hypothesis: Pessaries offer effective conservative management for symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse and are frequently used in the UK. Previous publications have highlighted a lack of evidence-based pessary guidelines. There is also a dearth of evidence regarding who UK pessary practitioners are and the training received. Methods: A Freedom of Information request was sent to 167 healthcare organisations in the UK. Requested information included the number of pessaries inserted or changed, the grade and profession of pessary practitioners and training requirements at the organisation. Results: Responses were received from 128 organisations. One hundred and ten had provided information for practitioners managing pessaries. At 66% (72) of organisations, pessary care was provided by both doctors and nurses of varying grades. At 23% of organisations either solely doctors or solely nurses provided pessary care. At the remaining 9% there was a multidisciplinary approach to pessary care. At 3 hospitals, unregistered healthcare professionals provided pessary care. At the majority of organisations, respondents undertook supervised practise to gain skills in pessary management. Additional methods of training cited were learning through observation or achieving set competencies. Twenty-six percent received didactic training. At 21% of organisations there were no training requirements. Conclusions: At most organisations, there was a multidisciplinary approach to pessary care. It is questionable whether unregistered healthcare professionals should be delegated responsibility for pessary care. A standardised approach to pessary practitioner training is advocated to ensure that women receive safe, evidence-based pessary care. The UK Clinical Guidance Group for the Use of Pessaries in Vaginal Prolapse is currently developing national evidence-based guidelines to support pessary practitioners in their practice, including training requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (or prolapse) is a common condition in women where the pelvic organs (bladder, bowel or womb) descend into the vagina and cause distressing symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Many women will use a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. Clinic-based care usually consists of having a pessary fitted in a primary or secondary care setting, and returning approximately every 6 months for healthcare professional review and pessary change. However, it is possible that women could remove, clean and re-insert their pessary themselves; this is called self-management. This trial aims to assess if self-management of a vaginal pessary is associated with better quality of life for women with prolapse when compared to clinic-based care.Methods: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in at least 17 UK centres. The intervention group will receive pessary self-management teaching, a self-management information leaflet, a follow-up phone call and access to a local telephone number for clinical support. The control group will receive the clinic-based pessary care which is standard at their centre. Demographic and medical history data will be collected from both groups at baseline. The primary outcome is condition-specific quality of life at 18 months' post-randomisation. Several secondary outcomes will also be assessed using participant-completed questionnaires. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months' post-randomisation. An economic evaluation will be carried out alongside the trial to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will run parallel to the trial, the protocol for which is reported in a companion paper.Discussion: The results of the trial will provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care in terms of improving women's quality of life, and of its cost-effectiveness.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on June 10, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Process evaluations have become a valued component, alongside clinical trials, of the wider evaluation of complex health interventions. They support understanding of implementation, and fidelity, related to the intervention and provide valuable insights into what is effective in a practical setting by examining the context in which interventions are implemented. The TOPSY study consists of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of pessary self-management with clinic-based care in improving women's condition-specific quality of life, and a nested process evaluation. The process evaluation aims to examine and maximise recruitment to the trial, describe intervention fidelity and explore participants' and healthcare professionals' experiences.Methods: The trial will recruit 330 women from approximately 17 UK centres. The process evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with randomised women (18 per randomised group/n = 36), women who declined trial participation but agreed to interview (non-randomised women) (n = 20) and healthcare professionals recruiting to the trial (n ~ 17) and delivering self-management and clinic-based care (n ~ 17). The six internal pilot centres will be asked to record two to three recruitment discussions each (total n = 12-18). All participating centres will be asked to record one or two self-management teaching appointments (n = 30) and self-management 2-week follow-up telephone calls (n = 30). Process data (quantitative and qualitative) will be gathered in participant completed trial questionnaires. Interviews will be analysed thematically and recordings using an analytic grid to identify fidelity to the intervention. Quantitative analysis will be predefined within the process evaluation analysis plan.Discussion: The wide variety of pessary care delivered across the UK for women with pelvic organ prolapse presents specific localised contexts in which the TOPSY interventions will be implemented. Understanding this contextual variance is central to understanding how and in what circumstances pessary self-management can be implemented (should it be effective). The inclusion of non-randomised women provides an innovative way of collecting indispensable information about eligible women who decline trial participation, allowing broader contextualisation and considerations of generalisability of trial findings. Methodological insights from examination of recruitment processes and mechanisms have the potential to inform recruitment mechanisms and future recruitment strategies and study designs.Trial Registration: ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on 6 October 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Hypothesis: Pessary self-management offers benefits to women with no increased risk of complications. However, many are unwilling to self-manage, preferring clinician-led care. This study is aimed at exploring factors associated with willingness to self-manage a pessary., Methods: Women attending pessary clinic at a UK hospital were asked to complete a questionnaire providing responses on pessary use, comorbidities, female genital self-image, self-management experience and willingness (or not) to learn self-management. Based upon statistical advice we aimed to recruit 90 women. Data were analysed using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and Chi-squared test. Free text data were analysed thematically., Results: A total of 89 women completed the questionnaire. Thirty-three women (38%) had previously been taught pessary self-management. Of the remaining women, 12 (21%) were willing to learn, 28 (50%) were not willing and 16 (29%) were unsure. There was no correlation between female genital self-image and willingness to self-manage a pessary. Younger women were more willing to learn self-management (p =  < 0.001). Willing women were motivated by reduced follow-up visits. Self-managing women reported benefits including increased autonomy, cleanliness and giving their body "a break". Reasons discouraging women from self-managing were a lack of confidence; feeling physically unable; wanting clinician-led care; fear of problems or previous problems with their pessary., Conclusions: Most women were either unsure about pessary self-management or unwilling to self-manage. Age was the only factor we found that had a significant relationship with willingness to self-manage a pessary. With robust self-management teaching, support and follow-up, it is likely that many of the barriers women report can be overcome., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care., Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity., Design: A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation., Participants: Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking., Intervention: The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice., Allocation: Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre., Blinding: Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation., Outcomes: The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat., Results: Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations., Conclusions: Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment., Study Registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.