References

Rebecca S Geary; Ipek Gurol-Urganci; Jil B Mamza; Rebecca Lynch; Dina El-Hamamsy; Andrew Wilson; Simon Cohn; Douglas Tincello; Jan van der Meulen

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Geary RS, Gurol-Urganci I, Mamza JB, et al. Variation in availability and use of surgical care for female urinary incontinence: a mixed-methods study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2021 Mar. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 9.7.)

Variation in availability and use of surgical care for female urinary incontinence: a mixed-methods study.

Show details

Contents

< Prev Next >

References

1.: Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Clark A, Lapitan M, Nelson R, Sillen U. Epidemiology of Urinary (UI) and Feacal (FI) Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). In Abrams P, Khoury S, Cardozo L, Wein A, editors. WHO-ICS International Consultation on Incontinence. Third edition. Paris: Health Publications Ltd; 2005. pp. 255–312.
2.: Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, Aluko P, Ogah JA. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;7:. 10.1002/14651858.CD006375.pub4 CD006375 [PMC free article: PMC6483329] [PubMed: 28756647] [CrossRef]
3.: Coyne KS, Kvasz M, Ireland AM, Milsom I, Kopp ZS, Chapple CR. Urinary incontinence and its relationship to mental health and health-related quality of life in men and women in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Eur Urol 2012;61:88–95. 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.049 [PubMed: 21831517] [CrossRef]
4.: Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:501–6. 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6 [PubMed: 9083302] [CrossRef]
5.: Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 2010;21:5–26. 10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9 [PubMed: 19937315] [CrossRef]
6.: Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, Redden DT, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Markland AD. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:141–8. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000057 [PMC free article: PMC3970401] [PubMed: 24463674] [CrossRef]
7.: Offermans MP, Du Moulin MF, Hamers JP, Dassen T, Halfens RJ. Prevalence of urinary incontinence and associated risk factors in nursing home residents: a systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn 2009;28:288–94. 10.1002/nau.20668 [PubMed: 19191259] [CrossRef]
8.: Anger JT, Saigal CS, Litwin MS, Urologic Diseases of America Project. The prevalence of urinary incontinence among community dwelling adult women: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Urol 2006;175:601–4. 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00242-9 [PubMed: 16407004] [CrossRef]
9.: Minassian VA, Yan X, Lichtenfeld MJ, Sun H, Stewart WF. The iceberg of health care utilization in women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1087–93. 10.1007/s00192-012-1743-x [PMC free article: PMC3905313] [PubMed: 22527544] [CrossRef]
10.: Seim A, Sandvik H, Hermstad R, Hunskaar S. Female urinary incontinence – consultation behaviour and patient experiences: an epidemiological survey in a Norwegian community. Fam Pract 1995;12:18–21. 10.1093/fampra/12.1.18 [PubMed: 7665034] [CrossRef]
11.: Monz B, Hampel C, Porkess S, Wagg A, Pons ME, Samsioe G, et al. A description of health care provision and access to treatment for women with urinary incontinence in Europe – a five-country comparison. Maturitas 2005;52(Suppl. 2):3–12. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2005.09.007 [PubMed: 16297578] [CrossRef]
12.: Brown JS, McGhan WF, Chokroverty S. Comorbidities associated with overactive bladder. Am J Manag Care 2000;6(Suppl. 11):574–9. [PubMed: 11183900]
13.: Wagner TH, Hu TW, Bentkover J, LeBlanc K, Stewart W, Corey R, et al. Health-related consequences of overactive bladder. Am J Manag Care 2002;8(Suppl. 19):598–607. [PubMed: 12516954]
14.: Gibson W, Hunter KF, Camicioli R, Booth J, Skelton DA, Dumoulin C, et al. The association between lower urinary tract symptoms and falls: forming a theoretical model for a research agenda. Neurourol Urodyn 2018;37:501–9. 10.1002/nau.23295 [PubMed: 28471525] [CrossRef]
15.: NHS England. Excellence in Continence Care. Practical Guidance for Commissioners, and Leaders in Health and Social Care. London: NHS England; 2018.
16.: Minassian VA, Drutz HP, Al-Badr A. Urinary incontinence as a worldwide problem. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003;82:327–38. 10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00220-0 [PubMed: 14499979] [CrossRef]
17.: Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S, Norwegian EPINCONT study. Epidemiology of incontinence in the county of Nord-Trøndelag. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1150–7. 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00232-8 [PubMed: 11106889] [CrossRef]
18.: Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women: a review. JAMA 2017;318:1592–604. 10.1001/jama.2017.12137 [PubMed: 29067433] [CrossRef]
19.: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women: Management (NG123). London: NICE; 2019. 10.1111/bju.14763 [PubMed: 31211537] [CrossRef]
20.: Withington J, Hirji S, Sahai A. The changing face of urinary continence surgery in England: a perspective from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. BJU Int 2014;114:268–77. 10.1111/bju.12650 [PubMed: 24512557] [CrossRef]
21.: NHS Digital. Retrospective Review of Surgery for Urogynaecological Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence using Tape or Mesh: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Experimental Statistics, April 2008 – March 2017 [PAS]. 2018. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/mesh/apr08-mar17/retrospective-review-of-surgery-for-vaginal-prolapse-and-stress-urinary-incontinence-using-tape-or-mesh-copy (accessed 31 October 2019).
22.: NHS Digital. Hospital Episode Statistics. Patient Admitted Care, England – 2017–18. 2018. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity (accessed 31 October 2019).
23.: Gornall J. How mesh became a four letter word. BMJ 2018;363:k4137. 10.1136/bmj.k4137 [CrossRef]
24.: Schultz DG. FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2008.
25.: NHS England. Mesh Oversight Group Report. London: NHS England; 2017.
26.: Scottish Government. Scottish Independent Review of the Use, Safety and Efficacy of Transvaginal Mesh Implants in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2017. URL: www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00515856.pdf (accessed 16 September 2017).
27.: The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. 2018. URL: www.immdsreview.org.uk (accessed 19 May 2020).
28.: NHS England. Provider Bulletin: 11 July 2018. NHS England. 2018. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/2018/07/provider-bulletin-11-july-2018/ (accessed 19 May 2020).
29.: Sung VW, Joo K, Marques F, Myers DL. Patient-reported outcomes after combined surgery for pelvic floor disorders in older compared to younger women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:534.e1–5. 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.024 [PMC free article: PMC2783851] [PubMed: 19729141] [CrossRef]
30.: Wagg A, Duckett J, McClurg D, Harari D, Lowe D. To what extent are national guidelines for the management of urinary incontinence in women adhered? Data from a national audit. BJOG 2011;118:1592–600. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03100.x [PubMed: 21895954] [CrossRef]
31.: Gibson W, Wagg A. New horizons: urinary incontinence in older people. Age Ageing 2014;43:157–63. 10.1093/ageing/aft214 [PubMed: 24509954] [CrossRef]
32.: Brown JS, Nyberg LM, Kusek JW, Burgio KL, Diokno AC, Foldspang A, et al. Proceedings of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases International Symposium on Epidemiologic Issues in Urinary Incontinence in Women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:S77–88. 10.1067/mob.2003.353 [PubMed: 12825024] [CrossRef]
33.: Siddiqui NY, Levin PJ, Phadtare A, Pietrobon R, Ammarell N. Perceptions about female urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:863–71. 10.1007/s00192-013-2276-7 [PubMed: 24310988] [CrossRef]
34.: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. National Urinary Incontinence Organisational Survey. 2013. URL: www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/audit-quality-improvement/completed-projects/national-urinary-incontinence-organisational-survey/ (accessed 31 October 2019).
35.: Wennberg JE. Time to tackle unwarranted variations in practice. BMJ 2011;342:d1513. 10.1136/bmj.d1513 [PubMed: 21415111] [CrossRef]
36.: Wagg A, Das Gupta R, Assassa P, Shaw C, Mayne C, Martin M. Secondary-care treatment patterns in the UK for women with urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2005;96:839–42. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05723.x [PubMed: 16153213] [CrossRef]
37.: Hägglund D, Walker-Engström ML, Larsson G, Leppert J. Reasons why women with long-term urinary incontinence do not seek professional help: a cross-sectional population-based cohort study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2003;14:296–304. 10.1007/s00192-003-1077-9 [PubMed: 14618304] [CrossRef]
38.: McGrother CW, Donaldson MM, Shaw C, Matthews RJ, Hayward TA, Dallosso HM, et al. Storage symptoms of the bladder: prevalence, incidence and need for services in the UK. BJU Int 2004;93:763–9. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04721.x [PubMed: 15049987] [CrossRef]
39.: Hunskaar S, Lose G, Sykes D, Voss S. The prevalence of urinary incontinence in women in four European countries. BJU Int 2004;93:324–30. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04609.x [PubMed: 14764130] [CrossRef]
40.: Shaw C, Tansey R, Jackson C, Hyde C, Allan R. Barriers to help seeking in people with urinary symptoms. Fam Pract 2001;18:48–52. 10.1093/fampra/18.1.48 [PubMed: 11145628] [CrossRef]
41.: Strickland R. Reasons for not seeking care for urinary incontinence in older community-dwelling women: a contemporary review. Urol Nurs 2014;34:63–8, 94. 10.7257/1053-816X.2014.34.2.63 [PubMed: 24919243] [CrossRef]
42.: NHS Digital. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). 2018. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/hospital-episode-statistics (accessed 1 April 2019).
43.: World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Tenth Revision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. URL: https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en (accessed 1 December 2018).
44.: NHS Digital. OPCS Classification of Interventions and Procedures. 2018. URL: www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/web_site_content/supporting_information/clinical_coding/opcs_classification_of_interventions_and_procedures.asp (accessed 1 April 2019).
45.: Clinical Practice Research Datalink. CPRD Linked Data. 2019. URL: www.cprd.com/linked-data (accessed 1 April 2019).
46.: Herrett E, Gallagher AM, Bhaskaran K, Forbes H, Mathur R, van Staa T, Smeeth L. Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:827–36. 10.1093/ije/dyv098 [PMC free article: PMC4521131] [PubMed: 26050254] [CrossRef]
47.: Johal A, Mitchell D, Lees T, Cromwell D, van der Meulen J. Use of Hospital Episode Statistics to investigate abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Br J Surg 2012;99:66–72. 10.1002/bjs.7772 [PubMed: 22105834] [CrossRef]
48.: Grant RL, Drennan VM, Rait G, Petersen I, Iliffe S. First diagnosis and management of incontinence in older people with and without dementia in primary care: a cohort study using The Health Improvement Network primary care database. PLOS Med 2013;10:e1001505. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001505 [PMC free article: PMC3754889] [PubMed: 24015113] [CrossRef]
49.: NHS England. Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs): Local Plans to Improve Health and Care. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/integratedcare/stps/ (accessed 9 May 2020).
50.: Office for National Statistics. Table P01UK2011 Census: Usual Resident Population by Five-year Age Group. 2013. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/2011censuspopulationestimatesbyfiveyearagebandsandhouseholdestimatesforlocalauthoritiesintheunitedkingdom (accessed 31 October 2019).
51.: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The English Indices of Deprivation 2015. URL: www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-indices-of-deprivation (accessed 31 Oct 2019).
52.: Greenland S. Principles of multilevel modelling. Int J Epidemiol 2000;29:158–67. 10.1093/ije/29.1.158 [PubMed: 10750618] [CrossRef]
53.: Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing; 1967. 10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 [CrossRef]
54.: Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2014.
55.: White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. 10.1002/sim.4067 [PubMed: 21225900] [CrossRef]
56.: Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med 2007;26:2389–430. 10.1002/sim.2712 [PubMed: 17031868] [CrossRef]
57.: Austin PC. A tutorial on multilevel survival analysis: methods, models and applications. Int Stat Rev 2017;85:185–203. 10.1111/insr.12214 [PMC free article: PMC5756088] [PubMed: 29307954] [CrossRef]
58.: Bachmann LM, Mühleisen A, Bock A, ter Riet G, Held U, Kessels AG. Vignette studies of medical choice and judgement to study caregivers’ medical decision behaviour: systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:50. 10.1186/1471-2288-8-50 [PMC free article: PMC2515847] [PubMed: 18664302] [CrossRef]
59.: Veloski J, Tai S, Evans AS, Nash DB. Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation. Am J Med Qual 2005;20:151–7. 10.1177/1062860605274520 [PubMed: 15951521] [CrossRef]
60.: Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA 2000;283:1715–22. 10.1001/jama.283.13.1715 [PubMed: 10755498] [CrossRef]
61.: Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Jain S, Hansen J, Spell M, Lee M. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:771–80. 10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00008 [PubMed: 15545677] [CrossRef]
62.: Dresselhaus TR, Peabody JW, Lee M, Wang MM, Luck J. Measuring compliance with preventive care guidelines: standardized patients, clinical vignettes, and the medical record. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:782–8. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.91007.x [PMC free article: PMC1495610] [PubMed: 11119170] [CrossRef]
63.: Louviere JJ. Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. In A SAGE University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1988.
64.: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F. Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications. 4th edn. New York, NY: Springer Publishing; 2007. 10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0 [CrossRef]
65.: Green P, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res 1978;5:103–23. 10.1086/208721 [CrossRef]
66.: Collins LM, Lanza ST. Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
67.: Mamza JB, Geary RS, El-Hamamsy D, Cromwell DA, Duckett J, Monga A, et al. Geographical variation in rates of surgical treatment for female stress urinary incontinence in England: a national cohort study. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029878. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029878 [PMC free article: PMC6720135] [PubMed: 31462480] [CrossRef]
68.: Gurol-Urganci I, Geary RS, Mamza JB, Iwagami M, El-Hamamsy D, Duckett J, et al. Determinants of referral of women with urinary incontinence to specialist services: a national cohort study using primary care data from the UK. BMC Fam Pract 2020;21:211. 10.1186/s12875-020-01282-y [PMC free article: PMC7568393] [PubMed: 33066730] [CrossRef]
69.: Fine J, Gray R. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999;94:496–509. 10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144 [CrossRef]
70.: Gurol-Urganci I, Geary RS, Mamza JB, Duckett J, El-Hamamsy D, Dolan L, et al. Long-term rate of mesh sling removal following midurethral mesh sling insertion among women with stress urinary incontinence. JAMA 2018;320:1659–69. 10.1001/jama.2018.14997 [PMC free article: PMC6233805] [PubMed: 30357298] [CrossRef]
71.: Lynch R, Toozs-Hobson P, Duckett J, Tincello D, Cohn S. Making a decision about surgery for female urinary incontinence: a qualitative study of women’s views. Int Urogynecol J 2021;32:127–33. 10.1007/s00192-020-04383-5 [PMC free article: PMC7788015] [PubMed: 32601783] [CrossRef]
72.: Mamza JB, Geary R, El-Hamamsy D, Gurol I, Duckett J, Mahmood T, et al. Variation in surgical treatment advice for women with stress urinary incontinence: a study using clinical case vignettes. Int Urogynecol J 2020;31:1153–61. 10.1007/s00192-020-04295-4 [PMC free article: PMC7270981] [PubMed: 32253488] [CrossRef]
73.: Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Review Launched to Respond to Patient Concerns About NHS treatments. DHSC: London; 2018. URL: www.gov.uk/government/news/review-launched-to-respond-to-patient-concerns-about-nhs-treatments (accessed 31 October 2019).
74.: Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Government Announces Strict Rules for the Use of Vaginal Mesh. London: DHSC; 2018. URL: www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-strict-rules-for-the-use-of-vaginal-mesh (accessed 31 October 2019).
75.: Wagg A, Lowe D, Peel P, Potter J. Continence care for older people in England and Wales: data from a national audit. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2008;35:215–20. 10.1097/01.WON.0000313646.44870.d3 [PubMed: 18344798] [CrossRef]
76.: Franzen K, Andersson G, Odeberg J, Midlöv P, Samuelsson E, Stenzelius K, Hammarström M. Surgery for urinary incontinence in women 65 years and older: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26:1095–102. 10.1007/s00192-014-2573-9 [PubMed: 25477140] [CrossRef]
77.: Gibson W, Wagg A. Are older women more likely to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence since the introduction of the mid-urethral sling? An examination of Hospital Episode Statistics data. BJOG 2016;123:1386–92. 10.1111/1471-0528.13338 [PubMed: 25752477] [CrossRef]
78.: Wagg A, Mian S, Lowe D, Potter J, Pearson M, Continence Programme Working Party. National audit of continence care for older people: results of a pilot study*. J Eval Clin Pract 2005;11:525–32. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00570.x [PubMed: 16364105] [CrossRef]
79.: Horrocks S, Somerset M, Stoddart H, Peters TJ. What prevents older people from seeking treatment for urinary incontinence? A qualitative exploration of barriers to the use of community continence services. Fam Pract 2004;21:689–96. 10.1093/fampra/cmh622 [PubMed: 15528285] [CrossRef]
80.: Teunissen D, van Weel C, Lagro-Janssen T. Urinary incontinence in older people living in the community: examining help-seeking behaviour. Br J Gen Pract 2005;55:776–82. [PMC free article: PMC1562332] [PubMed: 16212853]
81.: Andersson G, Johansson JE, Nilsson K, Sahlberg-Blom E. Perceptions of urinary incontinence among Syrian Christian women living in Sweden. J Transcult Nurs 2009;20:296–303. 10.1177/1043659609334850 [PubMed: 19372538] [CrossRef]
82.: Welch LC, Botelho EM, Tennstedt SL. Race and ethnic differences in health beliefs about lower urinary tract symptoms. Nurs Res 2011;60:165–72. 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182159cac [PMC free article: PMC3142927] [PubMed: 21522033] [CrossRef]
83.: Wells M, Wagg A. Integrated continence services and the female Bangladeshi population. Br J Nurs 2007;16:516–19. 10.12968/bjon.2007.16.9.23427 [PubMed: 17551440] [CrossRef]
84.: Doshani A, Pitchforth E, Mayne CJ, Tincello DG. Culturally sensitive continence care: a qualitative study among South Asian Indian women in Leicester. Fam Pract 2007;24:585–93. 10.1093/fampra/cmm058 [PubMed: 17962234] [CrossRef]
85.: Giarenis I, Thiagamoorthy G, Zacchè M, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Management of recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral sling: a survey of members of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). Int Urogynecol J 2015;26:1285–91. 10.1007/s00192-015-2696-7 [PubMed: 25894904] [CrossRef]
86.: Rogers R, Lebkuchner U, Kammer-Doak D, Thompson P, Walters M, Nygaard I. Obesity and retropubic surgery for stress incontinence: is there really an increased risk of intraoperative complications? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1794–8. 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.07.012 [PubMed: 17014816] [CrossRef]
87.: Rechberger T, Futyma K, Jankiewicz K, Adamiak A, Bogusiewicz M, Skorupski P. Body mass index does not influence the outcome of anti-incontinence surgery among women whereas menopausal status and ageing do: a randomised trial. Int Urogynecol J 2010;21:801–6. 10.1007/s00192-010-1116-2 [PubMed: 20179903] [CrossRef]
88.: Ellington DR, Erekson EA, Richter HE. Outcomes of surgery for stress urinary incontinence in the older woman. Clin Geriatr Med 2015;31:487–505. 10.1016/j.cger.2015.06.006 [PMC free article: PMC4609316] [PubMed: 26476111] [CrossRef]
89.: Ellington D, Ballard A. Surgical treatment and outcomes for the management of stress urinary incontinence in the older woman. Curr Geriatr Rep 2017;6:90–7. 10.1007/s13670-017-0204-2 [CrossRef]
90.: Morling JR, McAllister DA, Agur W, Fischbacher CM, Glazener CM, Guerrero K, et al. Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997-2016: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017;389:629–40. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32572-7 [PubMed: 28010993] [CrossRef]
91.: Keltie K, Elneil S, Monga A, Patrick H, Powell J, Campbell B, Sims AJ. Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women. Sci Rep 2017;7:12015. 10.1038/s41598-017-11821-w [PMC free article: PMC5607307] [PubMed: 28931856] [CrossRef]
92.: Mohammed MA, Deeks JJ, Girling A, Rudge G, Carmalt M, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ. Evidence of methodological bias in hospital standardised mortality ratios: retrospective database study of English hospitals. BMJ 2009;338:b780. 10.1136/bmj.b780 [PMC free article: PMC2659855] [PubMed: 19297447] [CrossRef]
93.: Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Ziprin P, Faiz OD. Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health 2012;34:138–48. 10.1093/pubmed/fdr054 [PMC free article: PMC3285117] [PubMed: 21795302] [CrossRef]
94.: Teunissen TA, de Jonge A, van Weel C, Lagro-Janssen AL. Treating urinary incontinence in the elderly – conservative therapies that work: a systematic review. J Fam Pract 2004;53:25–30, 32. [PubMed: 14709263]
95.: Williams T, van Staa T, Puri S, Eaton S. Recent advances in the utility and use of the General Practice Research Database as an example of a UK Primary Care Data resource. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2012;3:89–99. 10.1177/2042098611435911 [PMC free article: PMC4110844] [PubMed: 25083228] [CrossRef]
96.: The King’s Fund. The UK Private Health Market. London: The King’s Fund; 2014. URL: www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/commission-appendix-uk-private-health-market.pdf (accessed 9 May 2020).
97.: Wennberg A. Tracking Medicine: A Researcher’s Quest to Understand Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
98.: Public Health England (PHE), NHS RightCare. The NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare: Reducing Unwarranted Variation to Increase Value and Improve Quality. London: PHE; 2015.
99.: NHS England. Mesh Complications. London: NHS England; 2017. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mesh-complications.pdf (accessed 9 May 2020).
100.: US Food and Drug Administration. Considerations About Surgical Mesh for SUI. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2018. URL: www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/ucm345219.htm (accessed 31 October 2019).
101.: American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS), Society for Urodynamics (SUFU). Position Statement on Mesh Midurethral Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence. 2018. URL: www.augs.org/assets/1/6/AUGS-SUFU_MUS_Position_Statement.pdf (accessed 9 May 2020).
102.: Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Finazzi Agrò E, Soligo M, Li Marzi V, Digesu A, Serati M. Long-term outcomes of TOT and TVT procedures for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2017;28:1119–30. 10.1007/s00192-017-3275-x [PubMed: 28213797] [CrossRef]
103.: NICE. Collecting Data on Surgery and Surgical Complications. London: NICE; 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng123/chapter/Recommendations#collecting-data-on-surgery-and-surgical-complications (accessed 19 May 2020).
104.: Wright AK, Kontopantelis E, Emsley R, Buchan I, Sattar N, Rutter MK, Ashcroft DM. Life expectancy and cause-specific mortality in type 2 diabetes: a population-based cohort study quantifying relationships in ethnic subgroups. Diabetes Care 2017;40:338–45. 10.2337/dc16-1616 [PubMed: 27998911] [CrossRef]
105.: Stocks SJ, Kontopantelis E, Akbarov A, Rodgers S, Avery AJ. Examining variations in prescribing safety in UK general practice: cross sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. BMJ 2015;351:h5501. 10.1136/bmj.h5501 [PMC free article: PMC4632209] [PubMed: 26537416] [CrossRef]
106.: Joseph RM, Movahedi M, Dixon WG, Symmons DPM. Risks of smoking and benefits of smoking cessation on hospitalisations for cardiovascular events and respiratory infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. RMD Open 2017;3:e000506. 10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000506 [PMC free article: PMC5623338] [PubMed: 29018566] [CrossRef]

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2021. This work was produced by Geary et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Bookshelf ID: NBK568990

Contents

< Prev Next >

PubReader
Print View
Cite this Page
Geary RS, Gurol-Urganci I, Mamza JB, et al. Variation in availability and use of surgical care for female urinary incontinence: a mixed-methods study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2021 Mar. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 9.7.) References.
PDF version of this title (3.1M)