Intervention Protocol

Combined conservative interventions for urge, stress or mixed incontinence in adults

  1. Beverley French1,*,
  2. Lois H Thomas1,
  3. Michael J Leathley2,
  4. Christopher J Sutton3,
  5. Jo Booth4,
  6. Katie Brittain5,
  7. Christopher Burton6,
  8. Francine Cheater7,
  9. Brenda Roe8,
  10. E. Jean C. Hay-Smith9,
  11. Joanna McAdam10,
  12. ICONS Patient, Carer and Public Involvement Group11,
  13. Caroline L Watkins2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Incontinence Group

Published Online: 8 DEC 2010

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008910


How to Cite

French B, Thomas LH, Leathley MJ, Sutton CJ, Booth J, Brittain K, Burton C, Cheater F, Roe B, Hay-Smith EJC, McAdam J, ICONS Patient, Carer and Public Involvement Group, Watkins CL. Combined conservative interventions for urge, stress or mixed incontinence in adults (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD008910. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008910.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Central Lancashire, Department of Nursing and Caring Sciences, Preston, Lancashire, UK

  2. 2

    University of Central Lancashire, Clinical Practice Research Unit, School of Nursing and Caring Sciences, Preston, UK

  3. 3

    University of Central Lancashire, School of Public Health and Clinical Sciences, Preston, Lancashire, UK

  4. 4

    Glasgow Caledonian University, School of Health, Glasgow, UK

  5. 5

    University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

  6. 6

    University of Bangor, Centre for Health-Related Research, Bangor, Wales, UK

  7. 7

    Glasgow Caledonian University, Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

  8. 8

    Edge Hill University, Evidence based Practice Research Centre (EPRC), Ormskirk, Lancashire, UK

  9. 9

    Dunedin School of Medicine, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Dunedin, New Zealand

  10. 10

    University of Central Lancashire, Department of Nursing, Preston, Lancashire, UK

  11. 11

    University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK

*Beverley French, Department of Nursing and Caring Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Room 434, Brook Building, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE, UK. bfrench1@uclan.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 8 DEC 2010

SEARCH

 

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To determine whether combinations of conservative interventions for urge, stress, or mixed urinary incontinence reduce the number of people with urinary incontinence compared against no treatment/usual care, or another intervention.  The secondary objectives are to determine the effect of combined conservative interventions on subjective perceptions of cure or improvement; the severity of incontinence or urinary symptoms; quality of life or symptom distress; satisfaction with treatment; cost; or adverse events.

The specific comparisons to be made include:

  • combined conservative intervention versus no active treatment (e.g. no treatment, wait list control, attention control or usual care);
  • combined conservative intervention versus another single active treatment (e.g. a single conservative intervention, or an active non-conservative intervention);
  • one combined conservative intervention versus another combined active conservative treatment.