Pelvic floor muscle training: A comparison between medical centres employed women, with and without urinary incontinence

Abstract

What is the difference regarding pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) between women with and without UI, employed at a medical centre? There is a dearth of literature comparing PFMT between women with or without UI in the general population and none, specifically, for women employed at a medical centre. Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common problem for all ages, including females employed at medical centres. PFMT is the first-line intervention recommended for women with UI. The study aimed to compare women with and without UI employed at a medical centre, regarding knowledge, source of knowledge and practices of PFMT. This was a cross-sectional comparative study, with a convenience sample of 323 women who were employed at a medical centre, aged 20–50 years old. Two validated questionnaires were used: The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) and a new questionnaire, developed for this study, entitled the PFMT Patient reported Outcome Measures (PFMT-P). Ethical approval was granted with questionnaire completion and implied consent. Data was analysed by SPSS version 22, including descriptive statistics, independent t-test and Mann–Whitney. From the 323 participants, 56 (17.3%) had UI (UI group—UIG), 221 (68. 4%) were without UI (continence group—CG), and 46 (14.2%) did not answer the ICIQ-SF. Most of the participants were nurses (208 [66.5%]). There was a high level of knowledge for both groups without a significant difference between the groups. Regarding knowledge about recommended PFMT frequency, 37 (68.5%) in the UIG knew the correct answer compared to 108 (52.2%) in the CG, p = 0.03. The most common information source for all participants was the internet (79 [28.9%]). Most of the participants did not receive information from nurses, doctors and physiotherapists during their post-partum period. For both groups, lower scores were found for PFMT practice, 9.9 [6.4] in the UIG, 7.8 [4.10] in the CG, (with a maximum score of 35), p = 0.02. Two hundred and ninety-five (91%) participants reported that they are not currently practicing PFMT, and of them, 46 (15.6%) would like to learn PFMT. Knowledge and exposure to a source of knowledge regarding PMFT were not translated into actual technique practice. Women with UI practice PFMT more frequently than women without UI. A limitation of the study was that it was cross-sectional with a convenience sample of women employees with the majority being nurses. This may also have affected the knowledge component, as PFMT is studied in nursing school. Future studies can assess the difference between women with and without UI regarding PFMT who are employed in other work settings, as well as in the general population.