Qualitative clinician feedback on a systematic urinary incontinence screening and patient education intervention in primary care
5 affiliations
- 1Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- 4Department of Preventive Medicine, Division of Biostatistics and Informatics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- 5Northwestern Medical Group, Northwestern Memorial HealthCare, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Background Systematic screening for bothersome urinary incontinence (UI) is underused in primary care settings, despite the high prevalence of UI and its negative impact on quality of life. Within one academic health system a quality improvement initiative was implemented within the electronic health record (EHR) to support screening for bothersome UI in adult women with a scheduled preventive visit. Understanding clinician perspectives around this workflow may lead to improvements in its acceptability to clinicians and use in routine care.Objective To summarise qualitative clinician feedback about this UI screening initiative.Methods We conducted interviews with participating primary care clinicians. Clinicians were eligible for participation if they spent the majority of their clinical time at a clinic that had adopted the UI screening interventions in the EHR for at least 3 months. The interview guide focused on the perceived impact, usability and challenges of the screening process and workflows. Interviews lasted approximately 30 min and were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted.Results We interviewed 22 clinicians from 10 unique clinics. Qualitative feedback revealed that clinicians valued UI screening but experienced significant time pressure and competing priorities within a routine preventive patient encounter. Clinicians were comfortable discussing UI symptoms and diagnoses. In discussing UI treatment, clinicians expressed concerns about the side effects and costs of UI medications, highlighting a preference for referring patients to pelvic floor physical therapy and subspecialty care. Clinicians had neutral or positive attitudes towards the screening intervention and provided suggestions to improve the EHR alerts and order set.Conclusions Primary care clinicians we interviewed believe UI screening is important, and this screening intervention was acceptable and may improve patient care. Underlying structural constraints on primary care are barriers to this initiative and likely will be for other quality improvement initiatives.
Related
- Applying the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model to a Virtual Reality–Assisted Cognitive Health Education Intervention to Promote Screening Uptake: Qualitative Study
- Biomarker screening and intervention window for iliac vein stent restenosis: a systematic review of evidence-based advances
- Stakeholder perspectives on sustainable antenatal point-of-care ultrasound (APOCUS) implementation in rural Australia: a qualitative study of professional body submissions and clinician focus groups.
- Ensuring quality in research, 'Authorship Effect' & Conflict of Interest. Response submitted to BMJ Mental Health in response to 'Clinician perspectives on the utility and acceptability of OxSATS: a qualitative study of a novel structured suicide risk assessment tool
- ‘Efficacy and safety outcomes after slings or artificial urinary sphincter implantation for non-neurogenic male stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review’ for more clarity
BibTeX
@article{brown2026qualitative,
title = {{Qualitative clinician feedback on a systematic urinary incontinence screening and patient education intervention in primary care}},
author = {Tiffany Brown and Clare Petrie and Sarah A Collins and Julia Geynisman-Tan and Kimberly Kenton and Lucia C Petito and Gina Syed and Stephen D Persell},
journal = {BMJ Open Quality},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1136/bmjoq-2026-004311},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2026-004311},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Qualitative clinician feedback on a systematic urinary incontinence screening and patient education intervention in primary care
AU - Tiffany Brown
AU - Clare Petrie
AU - Sarah A Collins
AU - Julia Geynisman-Tan
AU - Kimberly Kenton
AU - Lucia C Petito
AU - Gina Syed
AU - Stephen D Persell
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - BMJ Open Quality
DO - 10.1136/bmjoq-2026-004311
UR - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2026-004311
AB - Background Systematic screening for bothersome urinary incontinence (UI) is underused in primary care settings, despite the high prevalence of UI and its negative impact on quality of life. Within one academic health system a quality improvement initiative was implemented within the electronic health record (EHR) to support screening for bothersome UI in adult women with a scheduled preventive visit. Understanding clinician perspectives around this workflow may lead to improvements in its acceptability to clinicians and use in routine care.Objective To summarise qualitative clinician feedback about this UI screening initiative.Methods We conducted interviews with participating primary care clinicians. Clinicians were eligible for participation if they spent the majority of their clinical time at a clinic that had adopted the UI screening interventions in the EHR for at least 3 months. The interview guide focused on the perceived impact, usability and challenges of the screening process and workflows. Interviews lasted approximately 30 min and were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted.Results We interviewed 22 clinicians from 10 unique clinics. Qualitative feedback revealed that clinicians valued UI screening but experienced significant time pressure and competing priorities within a routine preventive patient encounter. Clinicians were comfortable discussing UI symptoms and diagnoses. In discussing UI treatment, clinicians expressed concerns about the side effects and costs of UI medications, highlighting a preference for referring patients to pelvic floor physical therapy and subspecialty care. Clinicians had neutral or positive attitudes towards the screening intervention and provided suggestions to improve the EHR alerts and order set.Conclusions Primary care clinicians we interviewed believe UI screening is important, and this screening intervention was acceptable and may improve patient care. Underlying structural constraints on primary care are barriers to this initiative and likely will be for other quality improvement initiatives.
SN - 2399-6641
ER -