The relationship between frailty, incontinence severity, and treatment decisions for men with post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a mixed methods analysis

Charles P Jones; Nathan M Shaw; Jorge Mena; Benjamin N Breyer; Louise C Walter; Caitlin Baussan; Kathryn Quanstrom; I Elaine Allen; Daniel Dohan; Lindsay A Hampson

doi:10.21037/tau-22-839

The relationship between frailty, incontinence severity, and treatment decisions for men with post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a mixed methods analysis

Transl Androl Urol. 2023 May 31;12(5):840-848. doi: 10.21037/tau-22-839. Epub 2023 Apr 3.

Authors

Charles P Jones¹, Nathan M Shaw¹, Jorge Mena¹, Benjamin N Breyer^{1

2}, Louise C Walter^{3

4}, Caitlin Baussan¹, Kathryn Quanstrom¹, I Elaine Allen², Daniel Dohan³, Lindsay A Hampson^{1

5}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
² Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
³ Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
⁴ Department of Medicine, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
⁵ Department of Surgery, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Abstract

Background: Frailty is common among urology patients in general as well as among men seeking evaluation for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), with 6.1% of men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter placement considered frail. It is unclear if and how patient views on frailty and incontinence severity impact decision-making with regards to SUI treatment.

Methods: We undertook a mixed methods analysis to evaluate the intersection of frailty, incontinence severity, and treatment decision-making is presented. To do so, we utilized a previously published cohort of men undergoing evaluation for SUI at the University of California, San Francisco between 2015 and 2020, selecting those who had evaluation with timed up and go test (TUGT), objective measures of incontinence, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A subset of these participants had additionally undergone semi-structured interviews, and these interviews were re-examined to thematically code them with a focus on the impact of frailty and incontinence severity on SUI treatment decision-making.

Results: Among the original cohort of 130 patients, 72 had an objective measure of frailty and were included in our analysis; 18 of these individuals had corresponding qualitative interviews. Common themes identified included (I) impact of incontinence severity on decision-making; (II) the interaction between frailty and incontinence; (III) the impact of comorbidity on treatment decision-making; and (IV) age as a construct of frailty and impact on surgical choice and/or recovery. Direct quotations regarding each theme provides insight into patients' views and drivers of SUI treatment decision-making.

Conclusions: The impact of frailty on treatment decision-making for patients with SUI is complex. This mixed methods study highlights the variety of patient views on frailty with regards to surgical intervention for male SUI. Urologists should make a concerted effort to personalize patient counseling for SUI management and take time to understand each patient's perspective in order to individualize SUI treatment decision-making. More research is needed to help identify factors that influence decision-making for frail male patients with SUI.

Keywords: Frailty; incontinence; prostatectomy; treatment decisions.