MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283372812 · doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2022.06.001

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

2022· article· en· W4283372812 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of physiotherapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité de SherbrookeInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de MontréalCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMedicineUrinary incontinencePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Pelvic Floor MuscleClinical trialUrinary LeakagePelvic floorSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION(S): 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.govNCT02039830.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it