Posted by admin | Posted in Urge | Posted on 04-06-2012
I ran across an urge incontinence bio-feedback study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study pitted a group of women using a bio-feedback device versus women using drugs to control their urinary incontinence issues (Oh yeah, there was a controlled placebo group that didn’t use anything).
I don’t think this will startle you but in the end the women using the bio-feedback device worked the best. These studies have so many statistics, it makes me laugh. But here’s the ones that were interesting:
- The bio-feedback group experienced an 80.7% reduction in their urge incontinence episodes. (They had the groups keep diaries).
- The drug group showed a 68.5% improvement
- The control group showed a 39.4% improvement
But those were just the facts. There was another part of the study that was more interesting. The perception that things were improving was much higher in the bio-feedback group. 75% felt they were getting better. Only 50% of the drug patients did and only 25% of the placebo group.
That’s just amazing to me because mindset and will power and diligence and all that are tied to how you feel. Ya know if you don’t feel like kegels are working are you really going to keep doing them? That’s the power of doing kegels with a bio-feedback device and keeping a diary.
Not only can you see yourself squeezing the right muscle but also the diary shows it is working. I wish there were more urge incontinence studies like this. The results are just phenomenal.
Another “stat” that was of interest. . . only 14% of the bio-feedback patients wanted to change to another treatment. 76% of the other two groups wanted to change. That’s powerful.
84 people using the bio-feedback device were happy and 75 of them felt they were getting better. That’s a huge testimonial for using a bio-feedback device.
Have you tried one? what’s your experience?
(By the way, you can read that study. It’s called “Behavioral vs Drug Treatment for Urge Urinary Incontinence in Older Women in JAMA, Vol. 280, pp. 1995 – 2000, December 16, 1998)