Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 1/2021

Open Access 01-01-2021 | Urinary Incontinence | Original Article

Making a decision about surgery for female urinary incontinence: a qualitative study of women’s views

Authors: Rebecca Lynch, Philip Toozs-Hobson, Jonathan Duckett, Douglas Tincello, Simon Cohn

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

This qualitative interview study explores aspects women with urinary incontinence(UI) reflect upon when considering whether or not to have surgery. Conducted prior to the recent mesh pause in the UK, the article provides insights for current and future approaches to shared decision-making.

Methods

Qualitative in-depth interviews of 28 patients referred to secondary care for stress and mixed UI who were considering UI surgery. Participants were recruited from four urogynaecology clinics in the Midlands and South England, UK. Interviews were conducted in clinics, in patient homes, and by telephone. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method.

Results

Participants’ accounts comprised three key concerns: their experience of symptoms, the extent to which these impacted a variety of social roles and demands, and overcoming embarrassment. Accounts drew on individual circumstances, values, and concerns rather than objective or measurable criteria. In combination, these dimensions constituted a personal assessment of the severity of their UI and hence framed the extent to which women prioritized addressing their condition.

Conclusions

Acknowledging women’s personal accounts of UI shifts the concept of ‘severity’ beyond a medical definition to include what is important to patients themselves. Decision-making around elective surgery must endeavour to link medical information with women’s own experiences and personal criteria, which often change in priority over time. We propose that this research provides insight into how the controversy around the use of mesh in the UK emerged. This study also suggests ways in which facilitating shared decision-making should be conducted in future.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Jha S, Duckett J. Utility of patient decision aids (PDA) in stress urinary incontinence surgery. Int Urogynaecol J. 2019;30(9):1483–6.CrossRef Jha S, Duckett J. Utility of patient decision aids (PDA) in stress urinary incontinence surgery. Int Urogynaecol J. 2019;30(9):1483–6.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Birkmayer JD, Reames BR, McCulloch P, Carr AJ, Campbell WB, Wennberg JE. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet. 2013;382:1121–9.CrossRef Birkmayer JD, Reames BR, McCulloch P, Carr AJ, Campbell WB, Wennberg JE. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet. 2013;382:1121–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ducey A, Nikoo S. Formats of responsibility: elective surgery in the era of the evidence-based medicine. Sociol Health Illn. 2018;40(3):494–507.CrossRef Ducey A, Nikoo S. Formats of responsibility: elective surgery in the era of the evidence-based medicine. Sociol Health Illn. 2018;40(3):494–507.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(3):329–39.CrossRef Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(3):329–39.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Towle A, Godolphin W. Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ. 1999;319:766–71.CrossRef Towle A, Godolphin W. Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ. 1999;319:766–71.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. New Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.CrossRef Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. New Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Irvine J. What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(13):1414–20.CrossRef Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Irvine J. What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(13):1414–20.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Edwards G, Elwin A, Thompson R. Shared decision making in health care. Achieving evidence-based patient choice. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. Edwards G, Elwin A, Thompson R. Shared decision making in health care. Achieving evidence-based patient choice. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
10.
go back to reference Clinch M, Benson J. Making information ‘relevant’: general practitioner judgments and the production of patient involvement. Soc Sci Med. 2013;96:104–11.CrossRef Clinch M, Benson J. Making information ‘relevant’: general practitioner judgments and the production of patient involvement. Soc Sci Med. 2013;96:104–11.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ives J, Papanikitas A, Myres P, Gregory S. Shared decision making: a need for honesty. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(671):292–3.CrossRef Ives J, Papanikitas A, Myres P, Gregory S. Shared decision making: a need for honesty. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(671):292–3.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hanley J, Capewell A, Hagen S. Validity study of the severity index, a simple measure of urinary incontinence in women. BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1096–7.CrossRef Hanley J, Capewell A, Hagen S. Validity study of the severity index, a simple measure of urinary incontinence in women. BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1096–7.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Pub. Co; 1967. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Pub. Co; 1967.
15.
go back to reference Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2014. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2014.
16.
go back to reference Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician–patient en-counter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(5):651–61.CrossRef Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician–patient en-counter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(5):651–61.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Rapley T. Distributed decision making: the anatomy of decisions-in-action. Sociol Health Illn. 2008;30(3):429–44.CrossRef Rapley T. Distributed decision making: the anatomy of decisions-in-action. Sociol Health Illn. 2008;30(3):429–44.CrossRef
18.
Metadata
Title
Making a decision about surgery for female urinary incontinence: a qualitative study of women’s views
Authors
Rebecca Lynch
Philip Toozs-Hobson
Jonathan Duckett
Douglas Tincello
Simon Cohn
Publication date
01-01-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04383-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

International Urogynecology Journal 1/2021 Go to the issue