Table 3.
Continuous outcomes compared between the treatment group (n=60) and information group (n=63) at follow-up.
| Outcome measure and group allocation | Baseline, mean (SD) | Follow-up, mean (SD) | Between-group comparison at follow-up | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated difference (95% CI)a | P value | ||||||
| Primary outcome | |||||||||||
|
|
ICIQ-UI SFb | −3.1 (−4.8 to −1.3) | .001 | ||||||||
|
|
|
Treatment group (n=60) | 11.7 (3.5) | 7.0 (3.7)c |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
Information group (n=63) | 11.4 (3.2) | 9.8 (3.5) |
|
|
|||||
| Secondary outcomes | |||||||||||
|
|
ICIQ-OABd | −1.8 (−2.8 to −0.9) | <.001 | ||||||||
|
|
|
Treatment group (n=60) | 6.8 (1.8) | 4.7 (2.0) c |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
Information group (n=63) | 6.7 (1.8) | 6.4 (2.0) |
|
|
|||||
|
|
ICIQ-LUTSqole,f | −6.3 (−10.5 to −2.1) | .004 | ||||||||
|
|
|
Treatment group (n=60) | 37.6 (8.3) | 29.8 (7.8)c |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
Information group (n=63) | 38.0 (8.1) | 36.5 (9.0) |
|
|
|||||
|
|
Incontinence Catastrophizing Scale | −1.6 (−2.8 to −0.3) | .016 | ||||||||
|
|
|
Treatment group (n=60) | 4.4 (2.8) | 2.3 (2.1)c |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
Information group (n=63) | 4.7 (2.5) | 4.1 (2.5) |
|
|
|||||
aComparison of mean scores using a linear mixed model.
bICIQ-UI SF: International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire−Urinary Incontinence Short Form.
cMean values based on the scores of the 58 treatment app users who completed the follow-up questionnaire.
dICIQ-OAB: International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire−Overactive Bladder Module.
eICIQ-LUTSqol: International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire−Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life Module.
fThree of the items in the ICIQ-LUTSqol included an additional response option, “Not applicable” (these questions concerned partner relations, sex life, and family life). For this study, we set this response option as equal to 1 point, corresponding to the response option “Not at all” (ie, no impact).