Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Vaginal inserts and continence devices are recommended as a conservative treatment option for the management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI); however, practice patterns for recommendation and use of such devices are currently unknown. Our objectives were to better understand counseling patterns relating to over-the-counter (OTC) continence devices, to assess perceived barriers to recommending these devices, and to estimate clinician familiarity with three such devices currently available in the USA.
Methods
In this cross-sectional study, an anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited OB/GYN and Urology residency and Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) fellowship programs. A total of 326 survey responses were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess respondent characteristics associated with recommending OTC continence devices to patients.
Results
Sixty-four percent of respondents expressed familiarity with any OTC continence device. Of respondents who reported regular evaluation and treatment of women with SUI (n = 269), 60% reported ever recommending OTC devices for SUI. On multivariate regression, being a trainee and general OB/GYN provider were associated with being less likely to recommend OTC devices for SUI. Of respondents who did not regularly recommend OTC continence devices, reported barriers to doing so included a lack of training with these devices, leading to clinician discomfort (70%) and not remembering OTC devices as an option (15%).
Conclusions
Given the low risk associated with patient use of these easily accessible devices, our study highlights barriers to clinician recommendation with the goal of increasing clinician awareness and consideration of OTC continence devices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Uncategorized References
Markland AD, Richter HE, Fwu CW, Eggers P, Kusek JW. Prevalence and trends of urinary incontinence in adults in the United States, 2001 to 2008. J Urol. 2011;186(2):589–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.114.
Huang AJ, Brown JS, Kanaya AM, et al. Quality-of-life impact and treatment of urinary incontinence in ethnically diverse older women. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(18):2000–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.18.2000.
Kobashi KC, Vasavada S, Bloschichak A, et al. Updates to surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI): AUA/SUFU Guideline (2023). J Urol. 2023;209(6):1091–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003435.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
Ziv E, Stanton SL, Abarbanel J. Efficacy and safety of a novel disposable intravaginal device for treating stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):594.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.061.
Ziv E, Stanton SL, Abarbanel J. Significant improvement in the quality of life in women treated with a novel disposable intravaginal device for stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(6):651–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0824-y.
Duenas-Garcia OF, Shapiro RE, Gaccione P. Safety and efficacy of a disposable vaginal device for stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(6):360–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000861.
Brubaker L, Harris T, Gleason D, Newman D, North B. The external urethral barrier for stress incontinence: a multicenter trial of safety and efficacy. Miniguard Investigators Group. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(6):932–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00251-3.
Lipp A, Shaw C, Glavind K. Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(12):CD001756.
Nekkanti S, Wu JM, Hundley AF, Hudson C, Pandya LK, Dieter AA. A randomized trial comparing continence pessary to continence device (Poise Impressa®) for stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(4):861–8.
Association AU. AUA Urology Core Curriculum. American Urological Association. Accessed 24 July 2023. https://auau.auanet.org/core.
Gynecologists ACoOa. CREOG Educational objectives: core curriculum in obstetrics and gynecology, 13th Edn. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Accessed 24 July 2023. https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/files/creog/creog-educational-objectives-13th-edition.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
U. Omosigho: project development, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing/editing; E.W. Holt: data collection, manuscript writing/editing; S. Murarka: project development, manuscript writing/editing; E.M. Sebesta: project development, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing/editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
None.
Additional information
Handling Editor: Symphorosa Shing Chee Chan
Editor in Chief: Maria A T Bortolini
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Omosigho, U., Holt, E.W., Murarka, S. et al. Provider Practice Patterns Regarding Over-The-Counter Continence Devices. Int Urogynecol J 35, 995–1000 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05746-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05746-y