The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women: the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation

Background

Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care.

Objectives

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity.

Design

A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation.

Participants

Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking.

Intervention

The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice.

Allocation

Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre.

Blinding

Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation.

Outcomes

The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat.

Results

Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations.

Conclusions

Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment.

Study registration

This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Analysis of questions by patients with pelvic organ prolapse about vaginal pessaries resulting in a checklist for their physicians

OBJECTIVE

International guidelines recommend vaginal pessaries as a first-choice treatment of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Gynecologists rarely receive systematic training or just do not take the time to communicate with their patients. We hypothesized that we could identify key deficits and limitations of counseling before or during pessary therapy from questions directed to manufacturers with the aim to improve and promote health literacy of women with POP.

METHODS

We approached five manufacturers to provide anonymized inquiries related to pessary use. After exclusion of duplicates and questions about obstetric pessaries, 174 data sets from 145 patients remained.

RESULTS

In 19/145 patients (13.1%), a 2nd degree, and in 94/145 (64.8%), a 3rd-4th degree of POP was identified. Four patients had additional urinary incontinence. In 32/145 (22.1%), the severity of POP could not be identified. The age of patients ranged from 27 to 98 (mean = 63.7) years. Most inquiries were related to the selected pessary models or sizes (40/174; 22.9%), self-management (20/174; 11.5%), and technical aspects such as shelf life or appropriate cleaning (26/174; 14.9%). Pain or voiding dysfunction was present in 17/174 remarks (9.7%). Lifestyle questions related to the use of pessaries during sport, menstruation, or mechanical anticonception. The cube pessary was in the focus of interest followed by the sieve bowl, urethra, ring, and Gellhorn device. The list of questions was summarized as a checklist stratified according to priorities.

CONCLUSION

The checklist should help improve counseling and self-management of patients to optimize the benefit/risk ratio of conservative treatment of pelvic floor diseases.

Theoretical and practical development of the TOPSY self-management intervention for women who use a vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse

Background

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition in women, where the downward descent of pelvic organs into the vagina causes symptoms which impacts quality of life. Vaginal pessaries offer an effective alternative to surgery for the management of POP. However, the need for regular follow-up can be burdensome for women and requires significant healthcare resources. The TOPSY study is a randomised controlled trial which aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-management of vaginal pessaries. This paper describes the theoretical and practical development of the self-management intervention.

Methods

The intervention was developed using the MRC complex intervention framework, normalisation process theory (NPT) and self-management theory. The intervention aims to boost perceived self-efficacy in accordance with Bandura’s social cognitive theory and is guided by the tasks and skills Lorig and Hollman describe as necessary to self-manage a health condition.

Results

The TOPSY intervention was designed to support women to undertake the medical management, role management and emotional management of their pessary. The six self-management skills described by Lorig and Hollman: problem-solving, decision-making, resource utilisation, formation of a patient-provider partnership role, action planning and self-tailoring, are discussed in detail, including how women were supported to achieve each task within the context of pessary self-management. The TOPSY intervention includes a self-management support session with a pessary practitioner trained in intervention delivery, a follow-up phone call 2 weeks later and ongoing telephone or face-to-face support as required by the woman initiated by contacting a member of the research team.

Conclusions

The TOPSY study intervention was developed utilising the findings from a prior service development project, intervention development and self-efficacy theory, relevant literature, clinician experience and feedback from pessary using women and members of the public. In 2022, the findings of the TOPSY study will provide further evidence to inform this important aspect of pessary management.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577. Registered on June 10, 2017