Systematic Review Of Qualitative Studies On Women Suffering From Urinary Incontinence

Methodology

Discuss about the Analyze Methodologies Of Systematic Review.

Urinary Incontinence or UI is considered as some sort of an epidemic in today’s time. It occurs both in men and women regardless of age but affects women more, specifically the older women. It is also considered that the aggravation of human longevity has accelerated the rate of this disease which lowers the quality of life for the affected people (Schimpf et al., 2014). The systematic review conducted on the nature and spread of this disease has been done following many qualitative methodologies. This report would further analyze all these methodologies to present a critique on the published systematic review based on the same.

The purpose of this review is to find out the feasible examples and evidences of the experience that women suffering from UI go through (Peters et al., 2015). This critique would analyze how women around the world suffer from the ailment of the disease and their experiences would serve the purpose of finding a solution to eliminate them.

The systematic review of the required study has been conducted with the help of qualitative data (Milsom et al., 2014). However, the review had not been restricted itself to the designed format of phenomenology, ethnography, feminist research and others. The qualitative methodology is a published protocol and it would be referred as well.

The inclusion criteria, which are the characteristics for which the subject has been included in the study, can be described as below:

• Participant types: The range of participants included in this review has been all adult women over the age of 18 from different cultural backgrounds, all of who have been experienced the pangs of Urinary Incontinence (Dumoulin et al., 2015).
• Interest Phenomena: The study has included the individual opinion and perspectives of the women who have undergone the experiences of UI.
• Study type: The review has taken up qualitative study to systematically review the case, excluding all other designed methodologies.
• Context: The study focuses on the women including the social, financial, religious, cultural and other phenomenon that affects the situation of these women experiencing UI.

The type of study that has been included in this case has been the method of qualitative data collection. This is a methodology that uses observations over non-numerical data (Adams, Smart & Huff, 2017). It analyzes the concept, characteristics and nature of the research done for the particular subject. All other designed methodologies have been excluded since that would present a biased review of the subject.

The review has been strategized to implement both published and unpublished journals. The published databases that have been searched for this purpose are as follows:

• CINAHL
• PubMed
• PsycINFO
• Lilacs
• Scielo
• BVS
• BVS-Psi
• Scopus
• Embase
• Sociological Abstracts (Appendix I)

The unpublished journals that have been used for this review included:

• Dissertation Abstracts International
• Dissertations of the University of Sao Paulo
• Thesis bank

Other than this, the regular searches using web and Scholar articles were also used. All these databases and searched methodologies contained relevant information required for the study.

There were found to be several limitations in the applied search methods. Firstly, the women who have been considered for the study had several issues regarding the cultural differences and background (Crivellaro et al., 2016). In addition to that, the searching mechanisms that included internet were bound by the availability of services by the internet provider.

Inclusion Criteria

Prisma flowchart is defined as the information flow that describes various phases of a systematic review (Fusco & Novara, 2018). The Prisma flowchart used for this purpose successfully describes the systematic review through different elements included in the article, such as the identification of the number of records, the screening method for excluding the duplicates, eligibility of the articles and the final number of papers included in the systematic review. Therefore, it is justified for this particular systematic review since the flow of information in this entire system included only the relevant articles and journals.

The appraisal instruments that have been used in this systematic review have been the standardized critical appraisal instruments as used in the journal article from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI). Since, the methodology have been previously used in the approved and presented journal article, therefore, the use of this particular instrument is justified (Mendes et al., 2017). This was approved by 80 per cent of the review team and the rest was approved through mutual discussions.

• Study Type: The type of study is a systematic review which are focused on random and controlled trials and based on evidences. This is a feasible process since the research is based on medical issues that changes randomly with time.
• Study Population: Study population or the people involved in the review process are the women over 18 years of age having experiences with UI. This is also justified since the younger women had several difficulties in opening about confidential subjects like these.
• Location: There is no specified location for this task and this is justified since the spread of the ailment has been over the entire globe and the study population has been chosen to be of different backgrounds.
• Intervention: The only interventions that the review had was from the varied cultural and social implications that the women underwent and the dilemma of conveying information about intimate matters since UI deals with Urinary dysfunction. This intervention is also justified given the subject matter and the disease area.

Few of the study methodologies have been excluded as they were suspected to produce biased results for the systematic review. Having a biased result would affect the review in many ways and the output would also be misleading (Pasila, Elo & Kääriäinen, 2017).

The data extraction and synthesis process was taken from the standardized journal of Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI). This is a universally accepted methodology and so the use of this process is justified.

According to the analysis of all the reviewed journals for the studies and all the discussions and limitations of study, a feasible critique of the systematic review would not ideally find flaws in the review (Pasila, Elo & Kääriäinen, 2017). However, excluded women under 18 years of age suffering the same problems would present different results.

The levels of evidences that have been presented in this systematic review have been just and valid since the assessment of these have depicted the plight of women from different social and cultural backgrounds in true light. Thus, the assessment along with the review levels is justified.

The results of this systematic review would be essentially beneficial because it just not develops a thorough review of the disease but also the condition of different women in dealing with UI coming from various cultural and social backgrounds (Patterson et al., 2018). This will help in the clinical practices since further the review would act as a reference so that the practitioners would apply suitable measures to the issues that arise.

Limitations of Study

Conclusion

Thus, it can be concluded that critique of the systematic review for Urinary Incontinence or UI have proven to be a successful process including all the features that provides helpful resources. The study conducted on the women suffering from UI above the age of 18 years provided insights on the nature and spread of this disease following many qualitative methodologies. This report analyzed all the methodologies to present a critique on the published systematic review based on the same depicting the plight of the women suffering from the disease.

References

Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017). Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 432-454.

Crivellaro, S., Morlacco, A., Bodo, G., Agro', E. F., Gozzi, C., Pistolesi, D., ... & Ficarra, V. (2016). Systematic review of surgical treatment of post radical prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Neurourology and urodynamics, 35(8), 875-881.

Dumoulin, C., Hay?Smith, J., Habée?Séguin, G. M., & Mercier, J. (2015). Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women: A short version Cochrane systematic review with meta?analysis. Neurourology and urodynamics, 34(4), 300-308.

Fusco, F., & Novara, G. (2018). Reply to Wael Agur and Jawad Freites’ Letter to the Editor re: Ferdinando Fusco, Mohamed Abdel-Fattah, Christopher R. Chapple, et al. Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Comparative Data on Colposuspensions, Pubovaginal Slings, and Midurethral Tapes in the Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 567–91. European urology, 73(3), e56-e57.

Mendes, A., Hoga, L., Gonçalves, B., Silva, P., & Pereira, P. (2017). Adult women's experiences of urinary incontinence: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Jbi database of systematic reviews and implementation reports, 15(5), 1350-1408.

Milsom, I., Coyne, K. S., Nicholson, S., Kvasz, M., Chen, C. I., & Wein, A. J. (2014). Global prevalence and economic burden of urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review. European urology, 65(1), 79-95.

Pasila, K., Elo, S., & Kääriäinen, M. (2017). Newly graduated nurses’ orientation experiences: A systematic review of qualitative studies. International journal of nursing studies, 71, 17-27.

Patterson, P. D., Higgins, J. S., Weiss, P. M., Lang, E., & Martin-Gill, C. (2018). Systematic review methodology for the fatigue in emergency medical services project. Prehospital Emergency Care, 22(sup1), 9-16.

Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International journal of evidence-based healthcare, 13(3), 141-146.

Schimpf, M. O., Rahn, D. D., Wheeler, T. L., Patel, M., White, A. B., Orejuela, F. J., ... & Mamik, M. M. (2014). Sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and metaanalysis. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 211(1), 71-e1.