MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399157768 · doi:10.2196/58551

Real-World Evidence From a Digital Health Treatment Program for Female Urinary Incontinence: Observational Study of Outcomes Following User-Centered Product Design

2024· article· en· W4399157768 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evelyn Hall, Laura Keyser, Jessica McKinney, Samantha J. Pulliam, Milena M. Weinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintUrinary incontinenceProduct (mathematics)MedicineComputer scienceUrologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects millions of women with substantial health and quality-of-life impacts. Supervised pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the recommended first-line treatment. However, multiple individual and institutional barriers impede women's access to skilled care. Evidence suggests that digital health solutions are acceptable and may be effective in delivering first-line incontinence treatment, although these technologies have not yet been leveraged at scale. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to describe the effectiveness and safety of a prescribed digital health treatment program to guide PFMT for UI treatment among real-world users. The secondary objectives are to evaluate patient engagement following an updated user platform and identify the factors predictive of success. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of women who initiated device use between January 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, included users aged ≥18 years old with a diagnosis of stress, urgency, or mixed incontinence or a score of >33.3 points on the Urogenital Distress Inventory Short Form (UDI-6). Users are prescribed a 2.5-minute, twice-daily, training program guided by an intravaginal, motion-based device that pairs with a smartphone app. Data collected by the device or app include patient-reported demographics and outcomes, adherence to the twice-daily regimen, and pelvic floor muscle performance parameters, including angle change and hold time. Symptom improvement was assessed by the UDI-6 score change from baseline to the most recent score using paired 2-tailed t tests. Factors associated with meeting the UDI-6 minimum clinically important difference were evaluated by regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 1419 users, 947 met inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. The mean baseline UDI-6 score was 46.8 (SD 19.3), and the mean UDI-6 score change was 11.3 (SD 19.9; P<.001). Improvement was reported by 74% (697/947) and was similar across age, BMI, and incontinence subtype. Mean adherence was 89% (mean 12.5, SD 2.1 of 14 possible weekly uses) over 12 weeks. Those who used the device ≥10 times per week were more likely to achieve symptom improvement. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, baseline incontinence symptom severity and maximum angle change during pelvic floor muscle contraction were significantly associated with meeting the UDI-6 minimum clinically important difference. Age, BMI, and UI subtype were not associated. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of a prescribed digital health treatment program for female UI. A digital PFMT program completed with visual guidance from a motion-based device yields significant results when executed ≥10 times per week over a period of 12 weeks. The program demonstrates high user engagement, with 92.9% (880/947) of users adhering to the prescribed training regimen. First-line incontinence treatment, when implemented using this digital program, leads to statistically and clinically substantial symptom improvements across age and BMI categories and incontinence subtypes.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicPelvic floor disorders treatments→French-language works237,207→