| 1. |
- Monz, B, et al.
(author)
-
A description of health care provision and access to treatment for women with urinary incontinence in Europe - A five-country comparison
- 2005
-
In: Maturitas. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-4111 .- 0378-5122. ; 52:Suppl 2, s. 3-12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Female urinary incontinence is a prevalent condition, but only about one-third of women seek treatment. Objectives: To describe the health care provision for women with urinary incontinence from a European perspective, selecting France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom as examples, and to investigate whether specific barriers for treatment exist. Methods: Available health care system information, a literature review and clinical expert information identified patterns of treatment provision. Results: In Spain, Sweden, and the UK, access to medical care in general is primarily through the general practitioners. However, in Spain and Sweden, women with urinary incontinence can directly visit specialists. In France and Germany, women have equal access to either general practitioners or specialists. Aside from general practitioners. gynaecologists play a major role ill urinary incontinence care in all countries except the UK. In Germany, urologists are also involved in initial female urinary incontinence cared however, only in about 16% of women. There are no waiting lists in France and Germany for appointments with physicians or procedures, contrary to Spain, which has long waiting lists. Access to general practitioners in the UK is unrestricted whereas advanced diagnosis and treatment in secondary care requires long waits. A specific Swedish policy mandates that no woman is required to wait longer than,3 months for incontinence visits and related surgery. In Sweden and the UK, specialist nurses and other health care workers provide incontinence set-vices. Almost all treatment options for urinary incontinence are at least in part reimbursed. However, various co-payments and fees in France, Germany, Spain and Sweden exist and constitute out-of-pocket expenses for women if no complementary additional private health insurance is available. In some countries, financial incentives for physicians to provide incontinence services are low, raising concerns about their interest to engage in continued patient care. Conclusions: Information about service provision in Europe for women with urinary incontinence is limited and makes it difficult to understand barriers to treatment seeking. A broad European perspective may promote optimised treatment access in the future for this widespread and under-recognised condition.
|
|
