The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A multicenter evaluation of absorbent products for children with incontinence and disabilities

A multicenter evaluation of absorbent products for children with incontinence and disabilities
A multicenter evaluation of absorbent products for children with incontinence and disabilities
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate all disposable pull-up-style pads (pull-ups) designed for children with learning and or physical disabilities and compare these with a representative sample of disposable diapers (diapers).
DESIGN: A multicenter randomized crossover trial where all children evaluated each product.
SETTING AND CHILDREN: A total of 61 community dwelling children with disabilities were recruited from 5 areas throughout the United Kingdom. Families were invited by letter to participate through their local clinical nurse specialist for continence care.
INSTRUMENTS: Instruments used included a range of questionnaires (product performance, design performance, and design preference questionnaires) and pad weight and leakage diaries.
METHODS: The children tested 10 products (5 pull-ups and 5 diapers) for up to 1 week per product both at home and at school. Caregivers (parents and guardians) completed the questionnaires after evaluation of individual products and design groups had been completed. They recorded wet product weights and scored pad leakage at each pad change. School staff completed an abbreviated product performance questionnaire for each product.
RESULTS: There was little difference in the overall performance of the pull-ups compared with the diapers. In the pull-up group, one product performed significantly worse than the others for some performance aspects.
Pull-ups worked particularly well for children able to assist with toileting and pad changes. Diapers were liked for ease of changing if the child used calipers, adapted footwear, or trousers. Diapers were more popular than pull-ups for night use, when greater absorbency was required. Neither design performed differently for school or home use.
Most caregivers expressed a preference for diapers or pull-ups based on a range of individual needs, for example, level of independence in toileting, discreetness in pad change, fit, and product appearance.
CONCLUSIONS: Diapers and pull-ups have different strengths and limitations, and both meet the specific needs of individual children. Although pull-ups are more expensive than diapers, their use is justified if based on a thorough assessment of individual need.
incontinence, multicenter evaluation, incontinence products, children with disabilities
1071-5754
235-244
Macaulay, M.
505970d3-1e67-4c1f-8291-3a950d336c6b
Pettersson, L.
5b52b4ef-3d89-493a-92d3-e4c4752107ea
Fader, M.
c318f942-2ddb-462a-9183-8b678faf7277
Brooks, R.
c147b4e8-cc8c-484b-a444-67c3bb418488
Cottenden, A.
28e7146a-44b1-4e89-8b37-91f994c04eb3
Macaulay, M.
505970d3-1e67-4c1f-8291-3a950d336c6b
Pettersson, L.
5b52b4ef-3d89-493a-92d3-e4c4752107ea
Fader, M.
c318f942-2ddb-462a-9183-8b678faf7277
Brooks, R.
c147b4e8-cc8c-484b-a444-67c3bb418488
Cottenden, A.
28e7146a-44b1-4e89-8b37-91f994c04eb3

Macaulay, M., Pettersson, L., Fader, M., Brooks, R. and Cottenden, A. (2004) A multicenter evaluation of absorbent products for children with incontinence and disabilities. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 31 (4), 235-244.

Record type: Article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate all disposable pull-up-style pads (pull-ups) designed for children with learning and or physical disabilities and compare these with a representative sample of disposable diapers (diapers).
DESIGN: A multicenter randomized crossover trial where all children evaluated each product.
SETTING AND CHILDREN: A total of 61 community dwelling children with disabilities were recruited from 5 areas throughout the United Kingdom. Families were invited by letter to participate through their local clinical nurse specialist for continence care.
INSTRUMENTS: Instruments used included a range of questionnaires (product performance, design performance, and design preference questionnaires) and pad weight and leakage diaries.
METHODS: The children tested 10 products (5 pull-ups and 5 diapers) for up to 1 week per product both at home and at school. Caregivers (parents and guardians) completed the questionnaires after evaluation of individual products and design groups had been completed. They recorded wet product weights and scored pad leakage at each pad change. School staff completed an abbreviated product performance questionnaire for each product.
RESULTS: There was little difference in the overall performance of the pull-ups compared with the diapers. In the pull-up group, one product performed significantly worse than the others for some performance aspects.
Pull-ups worked particularly well for children able to assist with toileting and pad changes. Diapers were liked for ease of changing if the child used calipers, adapted footwear, or trousers. Diapers were more popular than pull-ups for night use, when greater absorbency was required. Neither design performed differently for school or home use.
Most caregivers expressed a preference for diapers or pull-ups based on a range of individual needs, for example, level of independence in toileting, discreetness in pad change, fit, and product appearance.
CONCLUSIONS: Diapers and pull-ups have different strengths and limitations, and both meet the specific needs of individual children. Although pull-ups are more expensive than diapers, their use is justified if based on a thorough assessment of individual need.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: July 2004
Keywords: incontinence, multicenter evaluation, incontinence products, children with disabilities

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 19243
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/19243
ISSN: 1071-5754
PURE UUID: 2fc8bfac-7ab3-4d1d-bc0d-714df8fab87e
ORCID for M. Macaulay: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-4589

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 31 Jan 2006
Last modified: 08 Jan 2022 03:32

Export record

Contributors

Author: M. Macaulay ORCID iD
Author: L. Pettersson
Author: M. Fader
Author: R. Brooks
Author: A. Cottenden

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×