A multicenter comparative evaluation: disposable pads for women with light incontinence

Technology for managing incontinence: What are the research priorities?

Incontinence and toileting difficulties can often be successfully addressed by treating their underlying causes. However, (complete) cure is not always possible and continence products to prevent or contain unresolved leakage or to facilitate toileting are in widespread use. Many people use them successfully but identifying the product(s) most likely to meet individual needs can be challenging and the recently published Seventh International Consultation on Incontinence includes a chapter which draws on the literature to provide evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians and product users to select appropriate products. This paper is based on the same evidence, but reviewed from the different perspective of those keen to identify unmet needs and develop improved products. For each of the main continence product categories it (i) outlines the design approach and key features of what is currently available; (ii) provides a generic functional design specification; (iii) reviews how well existing products meet the requirements of their main user groups; and (iv) suggests priorities for the attention of product designers. It also flags some core scientific problems which - if successfully addressed - would likely yield benefits in multiple incontinence product contexts.

Randomized Cross-over Comparison of Icon™ Reusable Underwear to Disposable Pads for the Management of Mild to Moderate Urinary Incontinence

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare disposable pads to Icon™ reusable underwear for the management of urinary incontinence on dimensions of quality of life and product performance.

METHODS

This randomized cross-over trial included women with mild to moderate urinary incontinence as defined by baseline responses to the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form. Excluded were patients who had fecal incontinence or an active urinary tract infection. Participants were randomized to 2 days of Icon™ underwear or disposable pads use and then completed another 2 days using the alternate product. Outcome measures were responses to Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument (I-QOL) and Product Performance Questionnaire for each product.

RESULTS

Of the 70 women who were randomized, 52 completed the study. There was no significant difference between Icon™ underwear and disposable pads with regards to I-QOL total scores (66.2 ± 23.4 vs 65.5 ± 24.5, P = 0.71) or I-QOL subscores: avoidance and limiting behaviors (62.1 ± 24.4 vs 62.4 ± 25.0, P = 0.88), psychosocial impacts (74.4 ± 25.0 vs 73.4 ± 25.6, P = 0.51), and social embarrassment (57.8 ± 27.8 vs 56.1 ± 29.5, P = 0.43). Icon™ underwear scored significantly better than disposable pads on the Product Performance Questionnaire, with regards to overall impression (P = 0.0002), fit (P < 0.0001), discreteness (P < 0.0001), comfort when dry (P < 0.0001), comfort when wet (P = 0.0008), ability to keep skin dry (P = 0.0034), and kindness to skin (P < 0.0001). There was no difference between products in ability to hold urine without leaking (P = 0.40) or prevent odor when worn (P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in quality of life measures between Icon™ underwear and disposable pad users; however, Icon™ underwear was preferred on product performance.

Absorbent products for incontinence: ?treatment effects? and impact on quality of life

AIM

This study aimed to determine how the use and characteristics of absorbent products for incontinence impact on women's quality of life, and to examine the concept of 'treatment effects' in the context of pad use.

METHOD

Key pad performance characteristics were identified from the literature and focus group work. Semi-structured interviews with 99 women with light incontinence were used to investigate the impact of pad use on women's quality of life, including both positive and negative 'treatment effects', and to rank pad characteristics by their importance.

RESULTS

Achieving effective and discrete containment of urine was the dominant factor impacting on women's lives. Sub-themes embraced physical effects, psychological impact and social functioning. The five pad characteristics ranked most important for day time use were: 'to hold urine, to contain smell, to stay in place, discreteness, and comfort when wet. For night use discreteness was replaced by to keep skin dry'. High levels of reported anxiety were associated with perceived risk of poor pad performance, lack of discreteness and need for complex regimes for pad management.

CONCLUSION

Insufficient attention has been paid to the balance between the beneficial and negative treatment effects of absorbent pads to date. Existing continence-related quality of life measures are not designed for conditions where change in symptoms is not an outcome measure. The study findings provide the basis for developing a more sensitive, patient-oriented, quality of life measure for pad-users which can aid product selection, new product development and inform future evaluative comparisons between products/products and treatments.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This paper illustrates the complex influence on quality of life caused by using absorbent pads to contain incontinence. It raises awareness of the importance of careful selection of the most appropriate pad for each individual to minimize unfavourable side effects, and the need for a new quality of life measure designed for pad-users.

Absorbent products for light urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Incontinence is a common and embarrassing problem which has a profound effect on social and psychological well-being. Many people wear absorbent products to contain urine leakage and protect their clothes. It can be difficult to define light urinary incontinence because urine volumes, flow and frequency rates may vary substantially whilst still being considered 'light'. Light incontinence may encompass occasional (monthly) leaks of very small amounts (e.g. 1 g to 2 g) up to frequent leaks (several times per day) of larger amounts (e.g. 20 g to 50 g). A practical definition is urine loss that can be contained within a small absorbent pad (typically 50 g to 500 g; ISO 1996).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of different types of absorbent product designs for women with light urinary incontinence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (3 May 2006) and the reference lists of relevant articles were perused.

SELECTION CRITERIA

TYPES OF STUDIES: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of absorbent products for women with light urinary incontinence.

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Women with light urinary incontinence. TYPES OF INTERVENTION: Absorbent products (disposable insert pads, menstrual pads, washable pants with integral pad, washable insert pads) suitable for light incontinence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible studies and independently extracted data from the included trial.

MAIN RESULTS

One study with 85 participants met the selection criteria. This trial studied all the absorbent product designs included in this review. Data were presented on all included outcomes. For preventing leakage, for preference and for overall acceptability disposable insert pads are better than disposable menstrual pads which are better than washable pants with integral pad which are better than washable insert pads. There is no strong evidence that either disposables or washables are better for skin health. The disposable insert is the most expensive design and there is no dominant design for cost-effectiveness. There is evidence that some women will prefer alternative designs which are all cheaper than disposable inserts.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although data were available from only one eligible trial the data were sufficiently robust to make recommendations for practice. Disposable insert pads are typically more effective than the other designs considered. However, because they are the most expensive, providing choice of designs (or combinations of designs for different circumstances) is likely to be cost-effective.

A multi-centre evaluation of absorbent products for men with light urinary incontinence

AIMS

This study compared the performance of the four main designs of absorbents for men with light incontinence: pouches (shields), leafs (guards), washable pant with integral pad (pantegral), and small disposable pad.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We did a multiple crossover trial. Men with light urinary incontinence were recruited. All pouches and leafs available in the UK were identified for inclusion. A single pantegral and small pad were selected based on previous evaluations for design comparison. Products were tested in random order for up to 1 week. Performance criteria (e.g., leakage and comfort) were rated using a validated product performance questionnaire. Wet product weights and amount of leakage were recorded in pad leakage diaries. "Overall opinion" for design performance was used as the primary outcome indicator.

RESULTS

Seventy-four men tested six leafs, six pouches, one pantegral, and one small pad. Leakage data was taken from 3,386 wet pads. The pouches generally performed poorly with few significant differences between products. The leafs were more variable with large and significant differences in ratings. Overall the leaf, pantegral, and small pad designs performed significantly better than the pouch (P <or= 0.01) and the pantegral design performed significantly worse than the leaf (P = 0.01). One leaf product was outstanding and performed significantly better than all other designs (P <or= 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This is the first published trial of absorbent products specifically designed for men. Results show that one particular leaf product works best, the pantegral is most suitable only for very light incontinence and the pouches are least successful.

A critical investigation of ISO 11948-2 and ISO 11948-1 for predicting the leakage performance of small disposable incontinence pads for lightly incontinent women

ISO 11948-2--an international standard laboratory method developed to predict the leakage performance of small disposable pads for lightly incontinent women--was investigated. The repeatability and reproducibility (precision within and between laboratories, respectively) of two variants on the method were found to be poor. The coefficient of variation for each method variant in each laboratory (two laboratories ran each variant) was higher than 40% for about half the 12 products evaluated. Results differed by up to 94% between laboratories for a given product. The ability of the method to predict the leakage performance of pads was investigated by measuring correlations between the clinical evaluations of the 12 products, and technical evaluations using ISO 11948-2. Correlations were very weak (r < or= 0.487). Accordingly, it is recommended that 11948-2 is withdrawn. A second international standard method (ISO 11948-1)--developed for evaluating large pads, but sometimes used on small ones--was also investigated. Correlations between the clinical evaluations of the 12 products and technical evaluations using ISO 11948-1 were weak (r < or = 0.560). Accordingly, it is recommended that ISO 11948-1 is not used for evaluating small disposable bodyworn pads for women.