Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 May;28(23):1–121. doi: 10.3310/NWTB5403

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women: the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation.

Carol Bugge, Suzanne Hagen, Andrew Elders, Helen Mason, Kirsteen Goodman, Melanie Dembinsky, Lynn Melone, Catherine Best, Sarkis Manoukian, Lucy Dwyer, Aethele Khunda, Margaret Graham, Wael Agur, Suzanne Breeman, Jane Culverhouse, Angela Forrest, Mark Forrest, Karen Guerrero, Christine Hemming, Doreen McClurg, John Norrie, Ranee Thakar, Rohna Kearney
PMCID: PMC11145464  PMID: 38767959

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity.

DESIGN

A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation.

PARTICIPANTS

Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking.

INTERVENTION

The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice.

ALLOCATION

Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre.

BLINDING

Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation.

OUTCOMES

The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common and distressing condition experienced by large numbers of women. Prolapse is when the organs that are usually in the pelvis drop down into the vagina. Women experience a feeling of something coming down into the vagina, along with bowel, bladder and sexual problems. One possible treatment is a vaginal pessary. The pessary is a device that is inserted into the vagina and holds the pelvic organs back in their usual place. Women who use a vaginal pessary usually come back to clinic every 6 months to have their pessary removed and replaced; this is called clinic-based care. However, it is possible for a woman to look after the pessary herself; this is called self-management. This study compared self-management with clinic-based care. Three hundred and forty women with prolapse took part; 171 received clinic-based care and 169 undertook self-management. Each woman had an equal chance of being in either group. Women in the self-management group received a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a telephone number for their local centre. Women in the clinic-based care group returned to clinic as advised by the treating healthcare professional. Self-management was found to be acceptable. Women self-managed their pessary in ways that suited their lifestyle. After 18 months, there was no difference between the groups in women’s quality of life. Women in the self-management group experienced fewer pessary complications than women who received clinic-based care. Self-management costs less to deliver than clinic-based care. In summary, self-management did not improve women’s quality of life more than clinic-based care, but it did lead to women experiencing fewer complications and cost less to deliver in the NHS. The findings support self-management as a treatment pathway for women using a pessary for prolapse.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Bugge C, Adams EJ, Gopinath D, Stewart F, Dembinsky M, Sobiesuo P, Kearney R. Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 11;CD004010; based on Bugge C, Adams L, Gopinath D,Reid F. Pessaries (mechanical devices) for pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;2013:CD004010. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004010.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Cooper J, Annappa M, Dracocardos D, Cooper W, Muller S, Mallen C. Prevalence of genital prolapse symptoms in primary care: a cross-sectional survey. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26:505–10. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2556-x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women: Management. 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng123 (accessed January 2022). [PubMed]
  4. Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, Dieter AA, Myers ER, Sung VW. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 2011;205:230.e1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Gyhagen M, Åkervall S, Milsom I. Clustering of pelvic floor disorders 20 years after one vaginal or one cesarean birth. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26:1115–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2663-3 doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2663-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. MacArthur C, Wilson D, Herbison P, Lancashire RJ, Hagen S, Toozs-Hobson P, et al.; Prolong Study Group. Urinary incontinence persisting after childbirth: extent, delivery history, and effects in a 12-year longitudinal cohort study. BJOG 2016;123:1022–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13395 doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13395. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Jelovsek JE, Chagin K, Gyhagen M, Hagen S, Wilson D, Kattan MW, et al. Predicting risk of pelvic floor disorders 12 and 20 years after delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:222.e1–222.e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.014 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Manchana T, Bunyavejchevin S. Impact on quality of life after ring pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2012;23:873–7. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1634-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Mendes LC, Bezerra LRPS, Bilhar APM, Neto JAV, Vasconcelos CTM, Saboia DM, Karbage SAL. Symptomatic and anatomic improvement of pelvic organ prolapse in vaginal pessary users. Int Urogynecol J 2021;32:1023–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04540-w doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04540-w. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Lowder JL, Ghetti C, Nikolajski C, Oliphant SS, Zyczynski HM. Body image perceptions in women with pelvic organ prolapse: a qualitative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:441.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.12.024 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Pakbaz M, Rolfsman E, Mogren I, Löfgren M. Vaginal prolapse – perceptions and healthcare-seeking behavior among women prior to gynecological surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:1115–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01225.x doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01225.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Abdel-Fattah M, Familusi A, Fielding S, Ford J, Bhattacharya S. Primary and repeat surgical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in parous women in the UK: a register linkage study. BMJ Open 2011;1:e000206. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Løwenstein E, Møller LA, Laigaard J, Gimbel H. Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse: a Danish cohort study with 15–20 years’ follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 2018;29:119–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3395-3 doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3395-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Subramanian D, Szwarcensztein K, Mauskopf JA, Slack MC. Rate, type, and cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Germany, France, and England. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;144:177–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: Prevention and Nonsurgical Management: Weight Loss Interventions. 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng210/evidence/j-weight-loss-interventions-pdf-392138593237 (accessed January 2022). [PubMed]
  17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: Prevention and Nonsurgical Management: Physical Activity for the Management of Symptoms. 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng210/evidence/l-physical-activity-for-the-management-of-symptoms-pdf-392138593239 (accessed January 2022). [PubMed]
  18. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: Prevention and Nonsurgical Management: Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for the Management of Symptoms. 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng210/evidence/m-pelvic-floor-muscle-training-for-the-management-of-symptoms-pdf-392138593240 (accessed January 2022). [PubMed]
  19. Hagen S, Stark D. Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;2011:CD003882. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003882.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003882.pub4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Weber MA, Kleijn MH, Langendam M, Limpens J, Heineman MJ, Roovers JP. Local oestrogen for pelvic floor disorders: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0136265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136265 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver R. Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? Int Urogynaecol J 2009;20:1157–61. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0930-x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Lone F, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Karamalis G. A 5-year prospective study of vaginal pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011;114:56–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Ramsay S, Tu LM, Tannenbaum C. Natural history of pessary use in women aged 65–74 versus 75 years and older with pelvic organ prolapse: a 12-year study. Int Urogynaecol J 2016;27:1201–7. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-2970-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Gorti M, Hundelist G, Simons A. Evaluation of vaginal pessary management: a UK-based survey. J Obstet Gynaecol 2009;29:129–31. doi: 10.1080/01443610902719813. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Chan MC, Momoe H, Maryna Y, Schulz JA. What are the clinical factors that are predictive of persistent pessary use at 12 months? J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2019;41:1276–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Li B, Zhang J, Yu C, Zhang L, Chen L, Chen Q. A prospective study of pessary use for severe pelvic organ prolapse: 3-year follow-up outcomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020;301:1213–8. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05526-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Mao M, Xu T, Kang J, Zhang Y, Ai F, Zhou Y, Zhu L. Factors associated with long-term pessary use in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Climacteric 2019;22:478–82. doi: 10.1080/13697137.2019.1582623. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: Prevention and Non-surgical Management 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng210 (accessed February 2022). [PubMed]
  29. Pelvic Obstetric and Gynaecological Physiotherapy. UK Clinical Guideline for Best Practice in the Use of Vaginal Pessaries for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. 2021. URL: https://thepogp.co.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/resources/uk_pessary_guideline_final_april21.pdf (accessed March 2022).
  30. Bugge C, Hagen S, Thakar R. Vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence: a multiprofessional survey of practice. Int Urogynaecol J 2013;24:1017–24. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1985-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Hanson LM, Schultz J, Flood CG, Cooley B, Tam F. Vaginal pessaries in managing women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence: patient characteristics and factors contributing to success. Int Urogynaecol J 2006;17:155–9. doi: 10.1007/s00192-005-1362-x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Bugge C, Dembinsky M, Kearney R, Hagen S. Is self-management of vaginal support pessary for pelvic organ prolapse safe and does it improve women’s quality of life. BMJ 2021;372:n310. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n310. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Kearney R, Brown C. Self-management of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2014;U206180:w2533. doi: 10.1136/bmjquality.u206180.w2533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Manonai J, Sarit-apirak S, Udomsubpayakul U. Vaginal ring pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse: continuation rates and predictors of continued use. Menopause 2018;26:665–9. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001277. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council Guidance. BMJ 2021;374:n2061 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  36. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Medical Research Council guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council Guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655 doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977;84:191–215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Lorig KR, Holman HR. Self management education: history, definition, outcomes and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 2003;26:1–7. doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2601_01. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Zwerink M, Brusse-Keizer M, Van Der Valk PDLPM, Zielhuis GA, Monninkhof EM, Van Der Palen J, et al. Self-management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;3:CD002990. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002990.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002990.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Research Award 16/82/01. URL: www.fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/16/82/01 (accessed June 2022).
  42. Hagen S, Kearney R, Goodman K, Melone L, Elders A, Manoukian S, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the topsy randomised controlled trial. Trials 2020;21:837. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04738-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Bugge C, Kearney R, Dembinsky M, Khunda A, Graham M, Agur W, et al. The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation. Trials 2020;21:836. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04729-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. 2010. URL: www.consort-statement.org/ (accessed March 2022).
  45. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, et al. Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med 2010;8:63. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Hagen S, Bugge C, Dean SG, Elders A, Hay-Smith J, Kilonzo M, et al. Basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence: the OPAL RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020;24(70). doi: 10.3310/hta24700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:103–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Rogers RG, Rockwood TH, Constantine ML, Thakar R, Kammerer-Doak DN, Pauls RN, et al. A new measure of sexual function in women with pelvic floor disorders (PFD): the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR). Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:1091–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-2020-8 doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-2020-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Constantine ML, Pauls RN, Rogers RR, Rockwood TH. Validation of a single summary score for the Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-IUGA revised (PISQ-IR). Int Urogynecol J 2017;28:1901–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3373-9 doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3373-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized Self-efficacy Scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio – Causal and Control Beliefs. Slough: NFER-Nelson; 1995. pp. 35–7.
  53. Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;189:98–101. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.379. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynaecol J 2010;21:523. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Panman CMCR, Weigersma M, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Leeuwen YL, Vermeulen KM, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment compared with pelvic floor muscle training in older women with pelvic organ prolapse: 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial in primary care. Menopause 2016;23:1307-18. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000706. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Weigersma M, Panman CM, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-Van Leeuwen Y, Dekker JH. Effect of pelvic floor muscle training compared with watchful waiting in older women with symptomatic mild pelvic organ prolapse: randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMJ 2014;349:g7378. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis of continuous and discrete responses for pre-post designs. Sankhyā: Ind J Stat, Ser B 2000;1:134–48.
  58. Dinh P, Yang P. Handling baselines in repeated measures analyses with missing data at random. J Biopharm Stat 2011;21:326–41. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2011.550113. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Hood K, Robling M, Ingledew D, Gillespie D, Greene G, Ivins R, et al. Mode of data elicitation, acquisition and response to surveys: a systematic review. J Health Technol Assess 2012;16:1–162. doi: 10.3310/hta16270. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Twisk J, Bosman L, Hoekstra T, Rijnhart J, Welten M, Heymans M. Different ways to estimate treatment effects in randomised controlled trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2018;10:80–5. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.03.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  61. Spencer L, Ritchie J, O’Connor W, Morrell G, Ormoston R. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications; 2014. pp. 296–345.
  62. Craig BA, Black MA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental net-health benefit: two sides of the same coin. Exp Rev Pharmacoecono Outc Res 2001;1:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.1.1.37 doi: 10.1586/14737167.1.1.37. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword (accessed February 2022). [PubMed]
  64. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2020. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2020. https://doi.org/10.22024/UniKent/01.02.84818
  66. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary 81. London: BMJ Publishing and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society; 2021.
  67. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997;6:327–40. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::aid-hec282>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
  69. Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II: an ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015;18:161–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices – overview: a report of the ispor-smdm modeling good research practices task force-1. Value Health 2012;15:796–803. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EAL, KarnonJ, SculpherMJ, PaltielAD; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health 2012;15:835–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, Luce BR. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices – modeling studies. Value Health 2003;6:9–17. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  74. Graham M, Goodman K. Commentary on my personal experience of patient and public involvement in the TOPSY trial. Trials 2023;24:228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07254-8 doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07254-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. Communities Analysis Division, Scottish Government. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. 2020. URL: www.gov.scot/collections/scottish-index-of-multiple-deprivation-2020/ (accessed November 2021).
  76. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. National Statistics English Indices of Deprivation. 2019. URL: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 (accessed November 2021).
  77. Zellner A, Huang DS. Further properties of efficient estimators for seemingly unrelated regression equations. Int Econ Rev 1962;3:300–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525396
  78. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Microeconometrics Using Stata. Revised edn. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2010.
  79. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ 2010;341:c4587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4587. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Turel Fatakia F, Pixton S, Caudwell Hall J, Dietz HP. Predictors of successful ring pessary use in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2020;60:579–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13152 doi: 10.1111/ajo.13152. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Mutone MF, Terry C, Hale DS, Benson JT. Factors which influence the short-term success of pessary management of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.012 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Gray TG, Vickers H, Krishnaswamy P, Jha S. A systematic review of English language patient-reported outcome measures for use in urogynaecology and female pelvic medicine. Int Urogynecol J 2018;32:2033–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04810-1 doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04810-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Boulton AJ, Williford A. Analyzing skewed continuous outcomes with many zeros: a tutorial for social work and youth prevention science researchers. J Soc Soc Work Res 2018;9:721–40.
  84. US Food and Drug Administration. E9 (R1) Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials: Addendum: Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials. Washington, DC: US Food and Drug Administraion; 2021.
  85. Schrijver J, Lenferink A, Brusse-Keizer M, Zwerink M, van der Valk PDLPM, van der Palen J, et al. Self‐management interventions for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;1:CD002990. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002990.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002990.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. Fryer CE, Luker JA, McDonnell MN, Hillier SL. Self management programmes for quality of life in people with stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;2016:CD010442. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010442.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010442.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Kroon FPB, van der Burg LRA, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Johnston RV, Pitt V. Self‐management education programmes for osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014:CD008963. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008963.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008963.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Barber MD, Chen Z, Lukacz E, Markland A, Wai C, Brubaker L, et al. Further validation of the short form versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodyn 2011;30:541–6. https://do.org/10.1002/nau.20934 doi: 10.1002/nau.20934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  89. Manchana T. Ring pessary for all pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;284:391–5. doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1675-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Lammers K, Tewest NI, Allen W, Parkin K, Moore KH. Does monthly self-management of vaginal ring pessaries reduce complication rates? Int Urogynecol J 2019;30:S271–2.
  91. Sarma S, Ying T, Moore KH. Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events. BJOG 2009;116:1715–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02380.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02380.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Chien CW, Lo TS, Tseng LH, Lin YH, Hsieh WC, Lee SJ. Long-term outcomes of self-management Gellhorn pessary for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2020;26:e47–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000770 doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000770. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Tam MS, Lee VYT, Yu ELM, Wan RSF, Tang JSM, He JMY, et al. The effect of time interval of vaginal ring pessary replacement for pelvic organ prolapse on complications and patient satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial. Maturitas 2019;128:29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Abdulaziz M, Stothers L, Lazare D, Macnab A. An integrative review and severity classification of complications related to pessary use in the treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:E400–6. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2783 doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  95. Murray C, Thomas E, Pollock W. Vaginal pessaries: can an educational brochure help patients to better understand their care? J Clin Nurs 2017;26:140–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13408 doi: 10.1111/jocn.13408. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Janjua S, Banchoff E, Threapleton CJD, Prigmore S, Fletcher J, Disler RT. Digital interventions for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;2021:CD013246. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013246.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013246.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES