Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial. Protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial

  • Suzanne Hagen*
  • , Rohna Kearney
  • , Kirsteen Goodman
  • , Lynn Melone
  • , Andrew Elders
  • , Sarkis Manoukian
  • , Wael Agur
  • , Catherine Best
  • , Suzanne Breeman
  • , Melanie Dembinsky
  • , Lucy Dwyer
  • , Mark Forrest
  • , Margaret Graham
  • , Karen Guerrero
  • , Christine Hemming
  • , Aethele Khunda
  • , Helen Mason
  • , Doreen McClurg
  • , John Norrie
  • , Anastasia Karachalia-Sandri
  • Ranee Thakar, Carol Bugge
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Glasgow Caledonian University
  • NHS Ayrshire and Arran
  • University of Glasgow
  • The University of Stirling
  • Health Services Research Unit
  • Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative
  • NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde
  • Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust
  • South Cleveland Hospital
  • University of Edinburgh
  • Croydon University Hospital

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (or prolapse) is a common condition in women where the pelvic organs (bladder, bowel or womb) descend into the vagina and cause distressing symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Many women will use a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. Clinic-based care usually consists of having a pessary fitted in a primary or secondary care setting, and returning approximately every 6 months for healthcare professional review and pessary change. However, it is possible that women could remove, clean and re-insert their pessary themselves; this is called self-management. This trial aims to assess if self-management of a vaginal pessary is associated with better quality of life for women with prolapse when compared to clinic-based care. Methods: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in at least 17 UK centres. The intervention group will receive pessary self-management teaching, a self-management information leaflet, a follow-up phone call and access to a local telephone number for clinical support. The control group will receive the clinic-based pessary care which is standard at their centre. Demographic and medical history data will be collected from both groups at baseline. The primary outcome is condition-specific quality of life at 18 months' post-randomisation. Several secondary outcomes will also be assessed using participant-completed questionnaires. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months' post-randomisation. An economic evaluation will be carried out alongside the trial to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will run parallel to the trial, the protocol for which is reported in a companion paper. Discussion: The results of the trial will provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care in terms of improving women's quality of life, and of its cost-effectiveness. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577. Registered on June 10, 2017.

Original languageEnglish
Article number837
Pages (from-to)837
JournalTrials
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Oct 2020

Keywords

  • Economic evaluation
  • Pessary
  • Prolapse
  • Quality of life
  • Randomised controlled trial (RCT)
  • Self-management

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial. Protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this