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.

Importance of the appropriate selection and use of continence pads.

Urinary incontinence is becoming an increasingly common problem for older men and women living in the community. It can have a deleterious effect on quality of life and, although advances have been made in treatments and therapies for this condition, there is still confusion over selection of continence products. This article will explore the problems associated with product selection and discuss alternative advice.

Disposable plastic liners for a colostomy appliance: a controlled trial and follow-up survey of convenience, satisfaction, and costs.

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of a disposable liner designed for a 2-piece colostomy appliance pouch was evaluated. DESIGN: Randomized, crossover trial with follow-up surveys. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Nineteen participants were recruited from the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, and the surrounding community. INSTRUMENTS: A Daily Colostomy Care Evaluation Record and tally sheet of times for ostomy care were designed by the authors. METHODS: Participants, acting as their own controls, were randomly assigned to use either an unlined or a lined appliance for 9 days. On day 10, participants switched to the opposite regimen, which was maintained through day 18. They recorded the time required for daily colostomy care and perceptions of the lined and unlined appliances. The volume of ostomy supplies and cost were recorded at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 to 9 months after the initial trial. RESULTS: Odor, bother, perceived severity of leakage, and partner acceptance were better with unlined than lined appliances. Half of the participants were using a liner > or =75% of the time 3 months after the trial. There was no difference in cost when lined versus unlined ostomy systems were compared. Participants who chose to use the liners indicated high satisfaction. Problems noted included an inadequate seal with the liner (58%), inadequate liner size (16%), retention of flatus by the liner (11%), and difficulty removing the full liner (11%). CONCLUSIONS: The study supports recommending liners to patients who have a modest amount of fecal output or flatus. However, patients who are unable to manipulate the seal or have a large output volume are unlikely to find the liners a convenience. Satisfaction with the liners was sufficient to warrant investigation and design of a lined device with an improved design, greater capacity, and tighter seal.