Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2015
Is group pelvic floor retraining as effective as individual treatment?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jones H J S, Gosselink M P, Fourie S, Lindsey I
Аннотация
AIM: Traditionally, pelvic floor retraining for faecal incontinence or obstructed defaecation has been delivered to patients through individual sessions with a specialist pelvic floor nurse, a resource-intensive practice. This study aimed to assess whether a similar outcome can be achieved by delivering retraining to patients in small groups, allowing considerable savings in the use of resources.
METHOD: Data were collected prospectively in a pelvic floor database. Patients received pelvic floor retraining either individually or in a small group setting and completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires. Two hundred and fifteen patients were treated, 119 individually and 96 in a small group setting. Scores before and after treatment for the two settings were compared for the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms. Additionally patients receiving group treatment completed a short questionnaire on their experience.
RESULTS: The median change in Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score was 5 (range -62 to 73) for individual treatment and 4 (range -41 to 47) for group treatment, both showing statistically significant improvement. However, there was no significant difference between the settings. Similar results were obtained with the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores for the faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation subgroups respectively.
CONCLUSION: The majority of patients experienced symptomatic improvement following pelvic floor retraining and there was no significant difference in the resulting improvement according to treatment setting. As treatment costs are considerably less in a group setting, group pelvic floor retraining is more cost-effective than individual treatment.
METHOD: Data were collected prospectively in a pelvic floor database. Patients received pelvic floor retraining either individually or in a small group setting and completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires. Two hundred and fifteen patients were treated, 119 individually and 96 in a small group setting. Scores before and after treatment for the two settings were compared for the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms. Additionally patients receiving group treatment completed a short questionnaire on their experience.
RESULTS: The median change in Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score was 5 (range -62 to 73) for individual treatment and 4 (range -41 to 47) for group treatment, both showing statistically significant improvement. However, there was no significant difference between the settings. Similar results were obtained with the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores for the faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation subgroups respectively.
CONCLUSION: The majority of patients experienced symptomatic improvement following pelvic floor retraining and there was no significant difference in the resulting improvement according to treatment setting. As treatment costs are considerably less in a group setting, group pelvic floor retraining is more cost-effective than individual treatment.