Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2025 Jul 2:1–43. doi: 10.3310/AKAK8992

Challenges to overcome in a randomised trial for Proper Understanding of Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence Treatment in women: the PURSUIT RCT.

Caroline Pope, Madeleine Cochrane, Clare Clement, Yumeng Liu, Sangeetha Paramasivan, Sian Noble, Stephanie J MacNeill, Amanda L Lewis, Jodi Taylor, Bethanie Fitzgerald, Nikki Cotterill, Tamsin Greenwell, Hashim Hashim, Swati Jha, Nikesh Thiruchelvam, Philip Toozs-Hobson, Alison White, Wael Agur, J Athene Lane, Marcus Drake
PMCID: PMC12376003  PMID: 40613491

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recurrence or persistence of symptoms after interventions to treat stress urinary incontinence in women is common, but without robust evidence to base treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether endoscopic or surgical treatments for stress urinary incontinence in women are effective and cost-effective.

DESIGN

A multicentre, unblinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Fifteen centres across the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult women with recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence.

INTERVENTION

Individual randomisation to endoscopic (urethral bulking) or surgical (autologous sling, colposuspension, artificial urinary sphincter) interventions. Women randomised to surgery chose their operative intervention.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Primary outcome self-reported International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form at 1 year post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form, Patient Global Impression of Improvement and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual questionnaires up to 3 years post randomisation, operative assessment measures and adverse events, cost-effectiveness from National Health Service and societal perspectives (quality-adjusted life-years and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form) at 1 year, and a secondary care perspective (quality-adjusted life-years) at 3 years. Semistructured qualitative interviews at baseline (post randomisation), follow-up (3-6 months) and longer-term (12 and 36 months), to explore stress urinary incontinence generally, the acceptability and attitudes to treatments and to improve understanding of outcomes. Qualitative interviews with clinicians at baseline were focused on potential difficulties of recruitment and optimising patient-facing information and training materials for clinicians.

RESULTS

Fifty-five women were deemed eligible after screening (n = 328 screened) from October 2019 to June 2022. Twenty-four eligible women consented, and 23 were randomised (between January 2020 and July 2022) from 8 sites with the average age of 57 years (standard deviation: 10.7) and all self-reported 'white' ethnicity. Participants reported a median International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form score at baseline of 16 (interquartile range: 13-19) and mean post-void residual volume of 4.64 ml (standard deviation: 8.45). Eleven participants received their allocated intervention, 2 participants withdrew prior to receiving their intervention and 10 were waiting for their intervention when the study closed. The most common reason for declining participation was a treatment preference (n = 14). Recruitment training sessions and recruitment tips documents were developed and implemented to address challenges centred around patient treatment preferences and clinicians' equipoise. However, the most important recruitment challenge was the low number of eligible patients, driven primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic preventing referrals and surgery, and related wider issues in the National Health Service which led to study closure in January 2023.

CONCLUSION

In its early stages, the initial recruitment rate was on target (four participants randomised in the first 3 months of recruitment), but once the pandemic started, the study was unable to recruit and so closed early. The main limitation was the occurrence of the global pandemic soon after the commencement of recruitment, profoundly affecting service delivery and patient presentations. Under normal healthcare service conditions, the study may be deliverable.

LIMITATIONS

Failure to recruit under pandemic conditions rendered the study unfeasible.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Practical experience with the study and development of patient-facing and staff training materials will help delivery of the study once patient referrals and healthcare services fully return to normal.

FUNDING

This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/95/03.

Plain language summary

Urinary leakage with physical activity, or stress urinary incontinence, affects about a quarter of women after pregnancy and at other times. Treatment options include surgery or a bulking injection into the bladder, but symptoms can continue after treatment, known as recurrent, or persistent, stress urinary incontinence. It is not known which treatment is best for women who have already had a treatment. This study aimed to establish whether an operation or endoscopic bulking injections are better for treating recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence. The study aim was for 250 women across the United Kingdom with recurrent stress urinary incontinence to take part, and recruitment started in January 2020. Fifty-five women from 15 hospitals were identified as suitable, and 23 women consented to take part and were randomly allocated (by chance) to a treatment group (surgery or bulking injection). Women in the surgery group decided which operation to have in consultation with their doctor. Women were asked to complete questionnaires at the start of the study, and again later, covering general health, urinary symptoms and the effect of those symptoms on everyday life. Some women were interviewed to explore their attitudes to the treatments and understand how they manage after having treatment. The most common reason women gave for not wanting to take part was that they had a treatment preference. Eleven women received their allocated treatment. However, the COVID pandemic and wider issues within the National Health Service made it impossible to identify enough suitable women, and treatments were prevented for a long period, so the study closed early in January 2023. Unfortunately, it is not possible to make conclusions from the results collected due to the low number of women in the study.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Clark L, Fitzgerald B, Noble S, MacNeill S, Paramasivan S, Cotterill N, et al. Proper understanding of recurrent stress urinary incontinence treatment in women (PURSUIT): a randomised controlled trial of endoscopic and surgical treatment. Trials 2022;23:628. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06546-9 doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06546-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Proper Understanding of Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence Treatment in Women (PURSUIT): A Randomised Controlled Trial of Endoscopic and Surgical Treatment. URL: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/17/95/03 (accessed 7 May 2025). doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06546-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. ISRCTN Registry. Proper Understanding of Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence Treatment in Women: ISRCTN12201059. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12201059
  4. Sirls LT, Tennstedt S, Brubaker L, Kim HY, Nygaard I, Rahn DD, et al. The minimum important difference for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2015;34:183–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22533 doi: 10.1002/nau.22533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials 2010;11:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Hernandez Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A. Estimating the relationship between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L: results from a UK population study. PharmacoEconomics 2023;41:199–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01218-7 doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01218-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Buckley BS, Lapitan MC; Epidemiology Committee of the Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence, Paris, 2008. Prevalence of urinary incontinence in men, women, and children – current evidence: findings of the Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence. Urology 2010;76:265–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.078 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.078. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Shaw JW. General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies. Eur J Health Econ 2021;22:1467–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01326-9 doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01326-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials 2016;17:283. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4 doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, et al. Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ 2002;325:766–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766 doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Donovan JL, Lane JA, Peters TJ, Brindle L, Salter E, Gillatt D, et al. Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Beard DJ, Rees JL, Cook JA, Rombach I, Cooper C, Merritt N, et al.; CSAW Study Group. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial. Lancet 2018;391:329–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32457-1 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32457-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Donovan JL. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol 2017;72:789–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al.; ProtecT Study Group. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1415–24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Lim E, Batchelor T, Shackcloth M, Dunning J, McGonigle N, Brush T, et al.; VIOLET Trialists. Study protocol for VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer, a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot (the VIOLET study). BMJ Open 2019;9:e029507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029507 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials 2014;15:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-5 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Wilson C, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Elliott D, Jepson M, Strong S, et al. Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework. Trials 2018;19:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6 doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Mills N, Donovan JL, Wade J, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Lane JA. Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Mills N, Blazeby JM, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Campbell B, Wilson C, et al. Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients’ treatment preferences. Trials 2014;15:323. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-323 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Paramasivan S, Huddart R, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A, Donovan JL. Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011). Trials 2011; 12:78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-78. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Rooshenas L, Elliott D, Wade J, Jepson M, Paramasivan S, Strong S, et al.; ACST-2 Study Group. Conveying equipoise during recruitment for clinical trials: qualitative synthesis of clinicians’ practices across six randomised controlled trials. PLOS Med 2016;13:e1002147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002147 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Jepson M, Elliott D, Conefrey C, Wade J, Rooshenas L, Wilson C, et al.; CSAW Study Group. An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;99:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Paramasivan S, Rogers CA, Welbourn R, Byrne JP, Salter N, Mahon D, et al. Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study. Int J Obes (Lond) 2017;41:1654–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.153 doi: 10.1038/ijo.2017.153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Wyatt D, Faulkner-Gurstein R, Cowan H, Wolfe CDA. Impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in the UK: a multi-method qualitative case study. PLOS ONE 2021;16:e0256871. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256871 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Unger JM, Xiao H. The COVID-19 pandemic and new clinical trial activations. Trials 2021;22:260. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05219-3 doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05219-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Audisio K, Lia H, Robinson NB, Rahouma M, Soletti G Jr, Cancelli G, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 clinical trials. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis 2022;9:19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9010019 doi: 10.3390/jcdd9010019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Medidata Solutions. COVID-19 and Clinical Trials: The Medidata Perspective. URL: www.medidata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/COVID19-Response9.0_Clinical-Trials_2020921_v2.pdf (accessed 10 February 2025).
  28. Lorenc A, Rooshenas L, Conefrey C, Wade J, Farrar N, Mills N, et al. Non-COVID-19 UK clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic: impact, challenges and possible solutions. Trials 2023;24:424. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07414-w doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07414-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NG123 on Urinary Incontinence in Women. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng123 (accessed 10 February 2025).
  31. Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:98–101. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.379 doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.379. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. 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]
  33. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. DAMOCLES Study Group. A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well. Lancet 2005;365:711–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17965-3 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17965-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Jones, KC, Weatherly H, Birch S, Castelli A, Chalkley M, Dargan A, et al. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2022 Manual. Kent; York: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2022.
  36. NHS England. 2021/22 National Cost Collection Data. 2023. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2021-22-national-cost-collection-data-publication/ (accessed 10 February 2025).
  37. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015. Kent: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2015.

RESOURCES