Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Group-based pelvic floor muscle training is a more cost-effective approach to treat urinary incontinence in older women: economic analysis of a randomised trial [with consumer summary] |
Cacciari LP, Kouakou CR, Poder TG, Vale L, Morin M, Mayrand MH, Tousignant M, Dumoulin C |
Journal of Physiotherapy 2022 Jul;68(3):191-196 |
clinical trial |
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
QUESTIONS: How cost-effective is group-based pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) for treating urinary incontinence in older women? DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside an assessor-blinded, multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial with 1-year follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 362 women aged >= 60 years with stress or mixed urinary incontinence. INTERVENTION: Twelve weekly 1-hour PFMT sessions delivered individually (one physiotherapist per woman) or in groups (one physiotherapist per eight women). OUTCOME MEASURES: Urinary incontinence-related costs per woman were estimated from a participant and provider perspective over 1 year in Canadian dollars, 2019. Effectiveness was based on reduction in leakage episodes and quality-adjusted life years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefit were calculated for each of the effectiveness outcomes and perspectives. RESULTS: Both group-based and individual PFMT were effective in reducing leakage and promoting gains in quality-adjusted life years. Furthermore, group-based PFMT was >= 60% less costly than individual treatment, regardless of the perspective studied: -$914 (95% CI -970 to -863) from the participant's perspective and -$509 (95% CI -523 to -496) from the provider's perspective. Differences in effects between study arms were minor and negligible. Adherence to treatment was high, with low loss to follow-up and no between-group differences. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard individual PFMT, group-based PFMT was less costly and as clinically effective and widely accepted. These results indicate that patients and healthcare decision-makers should consider group-based PFMT to be a cost-effective first-line treatment option for urinary incontinence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02039830.
|