Continence product choice model: a feasibility study
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Continence product choice model: a feasibility study
IRAS ID
234639
Contact name
Mandy Fader
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Southampton
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
250-10, Prostate Cancer UK/Movember TrueNTH continence management programme
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 4 months, 31 days
Research summary
Urinary incontinence is a common problem with an estimated 3-6 million people in the UK suffering to some degree. For many, consistent bladder control is an unattainable goal and urine containment products are required to enable them to undertake their daily activities.
Audits of continence care have measured practice against NICE clinical guidelines and have repeatedly found that the provision of care is inadequate and inconsistent. The rationing of products and the limited range of products available has been highlighted as a particular problem. Furthermore, a recent report has stated that ‘Supply of incontinence products should include an appropriate range of cost effective products for all patients, enabling patient choice where possible’ (All parliamentary group for continence care).
The products provided by continence advisory service do not reflect the range of options available to patients, do not appear to offer best value, do not best serve patients’ requirements and do not offer choice to patients.
This project has been developed following two connected pieces of work (Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Continence Management Programme for the Movember Foundation TrueNorth Project). The result of these studies is the production of a product decision aid, a tool designed to help patients, carers and clinicians to choose appropriate products for different activities.
The aim of this study is to test the feasibility the acceptability and utility of the product decision aid and product choice model. The outcomes include the measurement of the impact of the system on quality of life, the impact on routine working arrangements, administration and costs and the overall uptake of the scheme.REC name
South Central - Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
18/SC/0149
Date of REC Opinion
14 May 2018
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion