Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 May 14;20(5):e0322742.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322742. eCollection 2025.

The effect of conservative non-pharmacological interventions on the management of urinary incontinence in older adults living with frailty: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Maureen O' Callaghan  1 , Katie Robinson  1   2 , Aoife Whiston  1   2 , Morgan Senter  1   3 , Amanda M Clifford  1   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The effect of conservative non-pharmacological interventions on the management of urinary incontinence in older adults living with frailty: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Maureen O' Callaghan et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Urinary incontinence (UI) is highly prevalent among older adults with frailty, impacting function, quality of life and risk of long-term care admission.

Objective: To systematically review and synthesise the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of conservative non-pharmacological interventions on the management of UI in older adults aged ≥ 65 years living with frailty.

Methods: Five databases (Cochrane Library, Medline (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (EBSCO)) were searched from inception to April 2024 for RCTs that evaluated conservative non-pharmacological interventions for UI in older adults living with frailty. Two independent reviewers screened records, assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) Tool and Level of Evidence was summarised using GRADE guidelines. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model or narrative synthesis were performed as appropriate.

Results: Twelve RCTs, including 1,580 participants, with medium to high risk of bias were included. Conservative non-pharmacological interventions (categorised as single component or multicomponent interventions) resulted in a non-statistically significant reduction of objective measures of UI (6 RCTs, g = -0.39, p = 0.090; pooled effect size, with CI = -0.39 [-0.832, 0.060], I2 = 85.26%, with very low certainty of evidence). Improvements in functional ability were not found to be statistically significant (5 RCTs, g = 0.20, p = 0.39, pooled effect size, with CI = 0.20 [- 0.251, 0.642], I2 = 85.87%, and very low certainty of evidence). The interventions did not result in adverse events. Studies did not evaluate caregiver quality of life.

Conclusions: Very low-quality evidence found that conservative non-pharmacological interventions had beneficial but not statistically significant effects on objective UI and functional ability. Due to the high incidence of intervening illnesses and mortality in older adults living with frailty, it is recommended that future studies assess the effect of implementing tailored interventions addressing modifiable risk factors using more appropriate study design and outcome measures.

Registration: This review was prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (CRD42022316287; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram of study selection process.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Risk of Bias Summary Cochrane RoB 2.0 Tool.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Forest Plot of Objective Measure of reduction in UI Meta-Analysis.
PV, prompted voiding; MCI, multicomponent intervention; MCI*, multicomponent intervention + prompted voiding.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Forest Plot of Functional Ability Meta-Analysis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Cardozo L, Rovner E, Wagg A, Wein A, Abrams P. Incontinence, 7th ed. ICI-ICS. Bristol (UK): International Continence Society; 2023.
    1. Milsom I, Gyhagen M. The prevalence of urinary incontinence. Climacteric. 2019;22(3):217–22. doi: 10.1080/13697137.2018.1543263 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gibson W. Management of incontinence in the frail elderly. Obstet. Gynaecol. Reprod. Med. 2021;31(3):63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ogrm.2021.01.003 - DOI
    1. Engberg S, Li H. Urinary incontinence in frail older adults. UNJ. 2017;37(3):119. doi: 10.7257/1053-816x.2017.37.3.119 - DOI
    1. Griebling TL. Epidemiology, evaluation, and treatment of urinary incontinence in octogenarian women. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep. 2014;9(3):242–9. doi: 10.1007/s11884-014-0247-6 - DOI