Impact of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on quality of life among women suffering from stress urinary incontinence after first childbirth: a feasibility study

  • Jayawardane A
  • Patabendige M
  • Fernando W
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To determine the feasibility of performing a randomized controlled trial comparing Pelvic Floor Muscle Training (PFMT) and behavioral advice only for postpartum SUI. Results: A feasibility study was performed with 207 women in 7-16 weeks postpartum at community postpartum clinics. Women reporting SUI were randomized to an intervention group (n=15), which followed an organized PFMT programme for six weeks and a control group (n=14). Control group was advised on routine postnatal care with behavioral advice. Both groups were assessed for QoL using a validated incontinence-quality of life (I-QOL) questionnaire at recruitment and in six weeks. There were 14% (29/207) of women suffering from SUI amongst the study sample. Before intervention there was no difference between I-QOL score in both groups. There was significant improvement (p<0.001) of I-QOL score in the interventional group (PFMT) compared to the control group (routine care with behavioral advice) after six weeks. Studying QOL improvement with this intervention is feasible for an interventional study. If directly inquired by the healthcare provider, women were willing to report, discuss and seek treatment for SUI. Conclusion: SUI is a common postpartum problem in this urban cohort of Lankan women. These women can be effectively treated improving their QOL with PFMT intervention.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jayawardane, A., Patabendige, M., Fernando, W. J. G. S. N. T., & Jayasundara, D. M. C. S. (2021). Impact of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on quality of life among women suffering from stress urinary incontinence after first childbirth: a feasibility study. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 43(2), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.4038/sljog.v43i2.7999

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free