How older men live with stress urinary incontinence: Patient experience and navigation to treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the context in which older men navigate treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) following prostate surgery by characterizing lived experience of men with symptomatic SUI. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mixed method study using surveys and semistructured interviews to examine a cohort of men who underwent evaluation for treatment of postprostatectomy SUI. RESULTS: Thirty-six men were interviewed after consultation for SUI and 31 had complete quantitative clinical data. Twenty-six underwent surgery and 10 chose no surgical intervention. In qualitative interviews, respondents experienced substantial decline in quality of life due to incontinence citing concerns associated with use of pads and worrying about incontinence. Most patients reported "workarounds"-efforts to mitigate or manage incontinence including Kegels, physical therapy, and garments. Participants also reported lifestyle changes including less strenuous physical activity, less sexual activity, and/or fewer social gatherings. Patients then described a "breaking point" where incontinence workarounds were no longer sufficient. After seeking evaluation, men described challenges in exploring treatment for SUI, including access to care and provider knowledge of treatment options. CONCLUSION: In a novel study of patients living with SUI a predictable lived experience was observed that culminated in a desire for change or "breaking point." In all men, this led to treatment-seeking behaviors and for many it led to SUI intervention. Despite effective treatments, patients continue to meet barriers gaining access to SUI evaluation and treatment.

Patient decision-making for surgical treatment of post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a mixed-methods exploratory pilot study.

Background: Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a known complication following surgical intervention on the prostate, particularly following surgery for prostate cancer. Effective surgical treatments for SUI include artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and male urethral sling. Prior data suggest that men may forego available treatment despite bothersome symptoms. The objective was to explore how men who underwent surgical correction for post-prostatectomy SUI navigated SUI treatment decisions. Methods: Mixed method study was employed. Semi-structured interviews, participant surveys and objective clinical assessment of SUI were performed among a group of men living with incontinence after prostate cancer surgery who underwent surgery for SUI at the University of California in 2017. Results: Eleven men were interviewed after consultation for SUI and all had complete quantitative clinical data. Surgery for SUI included AUS (n=8) and sling (n=3). There was a decrease in pads per day from 3.2 to 0.9 and no major complications. Most patients found that the impact on activities and their treating urologist were of great importance. Sexual and relationships played a variable role with some participants ranking these as "great deal of influence" and others "little or no influence". Participants who underwent AUS were more likely to cite a higher importance on "being very dry" in choosing that surgery while sling patients had more variable ranking of important factors. Participants found a variety of inputs helpful in hearing information about SUI treatment options. Conclusions: Among a group of 11 men who underwent surgical correction for post-prostatectomy SUI, there were identifiable themes on how men make decisions, evaluate quality of life (QoL) changes and approach treatment options. Men value more than being dry with measures of individual success that can include sexual and relationship health. Furthermore the role of the Urologist remains crucial as patients relied heavily on input and discussion with their Urologist to assist in treatment decisions. These findings can be used to inform future studies of the experience of men with SUI.