↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of stress urinary incontinence with a mobile app: factors associated with success

Overview of attention for article published in International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of stress urinary incontinence with a mobile app: factors associated with success
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00192-017-3514-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Nyström, Ina Asklund, Malin Sjöström, Hans Stenlund, Eva Samuelsson

Abstract

Stress urinary incontinence is common among women. First-line treatment includes pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and lifestyle advice, which can be provided via a mobile app. The efficacy of app-based treatment has been demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In this study, we aimed to analyze factors associated with successful treatment. Secondary analysis of data from the RCT. At baseline and 3-month follow-up, participants (n = 61) answered questions about symptoms, quality of life, background, and PFMT. Success was defined as rating the condition as much or very much better according to the validated Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire. Factors possibly associated with success were analyzed with univariate logistic regression; if p < 0.20, the factor was entered into a multivariate model that was adjusted for age. Variables were then removed stepwise. At follow-up, 34 out of 61 (56%) of participants stated that their condition was much or very much better. Three factors were significantly associated with success: higher expectations for treatment (odds ratio [OR] 11.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.02-64.19), weight control (OR 0.44 per kg gained, 95% CI 0.25-0.79), and self-rated improvement of pelvic floor muscle strength (OR 35.54, 95% CI 4.96-254.61). Together, these factors accounted for 61.4% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variability in success. These results indicate that app-based treatment effects are better in women who are interested in and have high expectations of such treatment. Also, the findings underline the importance of strengthening the pelvic floor muscles and offering lifestyle advice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 60%
Unspecified 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 60%
Unspecified 1 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,835,537
of 8,926,386 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#517
of 855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,450
of 180,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,926,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.