Patient navigation for overactive bladder improves access to care

  • Matthew RohloffEmail author
  • Gregg Peifer
  • Jannah H. Thompson
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Patients with overactive bladder (OAB) become discouraged with medication therapy because of the side effects, minimal subjective improvement and costs of therapy. With the implementation of a patient navigation pathway there is increased communication, subsequently leading to increased patient retention rates and utilization of third-line therapies.


This was a quality improvement study carried out over a 17-month period comparing utilization of a navigation pathway versus patients without navigation. The data were obtained using an online database (PPS Analytics) to compare medication use, cystoscopy, urodynamic studies, use of third-line therapy, and return visits.


A total of 535 patients were included in the analysis and broken down into two respective groups. Group 1 were those placed on the navigation pathway and able to be reached via telephone (n = 431). Group 2 were those started on the navigation pathway who were not able to be reached via telephone, but were chart reviewed by a navigator (n = 104). Third-line therapy usage for groups 1 and 2 was 24% and 11% respectively. Return visits for additional OAB management for groups 1 and 2 were found to be 71% and 50% respectively.


Patient retention levels and utilization of third-line therapies are significantly improved when utilizing a navigation pathway. With 24% of the patients included in this study opting for third-line therapy, this represents a 600% increase in third-line therapies over national averages.


Overactive bladder Patient navigation Care pathway 



American Urological Association


Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery


Overactive bladder


Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine & Urogenital Reconstruction


Urodynamic studies


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest in the publication of this article.


  1. 1.
    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:4–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stewart W, Herzog R, Wein A, et al. The prevalence and impact of overactive bladder in the U.S.: results from the NOBLE program. Neurourol Urodyn. 2001;20:406–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gormley EA, Lightner DJ, Faraday M, Vasavada SP; American Urological Association; Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine. Diagnosis and treatment of overactive bladder (non-neurogenic) in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline amendment. J Urol. 2015;193:1572–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zimmern P, Litman HJ, Mueller E, Norton P, Goode P. Effect of fluid management on fluid intake and urge incontinence in a trial for overactive bladder in women. BJU Int. 2010;105(12):1680–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sexton CC, Notte SM, Maroulis C, et al. Persistence and adherence in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome with anticholinergic therapy: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(5):567–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu YF, Nichol MB, Yu AP, Ahn J. Persistence and adherence of medications for chronic overactive bladder/urinary incontinence in the California Medicaid program. Value Health. 2005;8(4):495–505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yeaw J, Benner JS, Walt JG, Sian S, Smith DB. Comparing adherence and persistence across 6 chronic medication classes. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15(9):728–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartigan S, Fischer K, Wein A, Jaffe W. High attrition rate and low progression to advanced therapy for patients with overactive bladder: a hospital system wide study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(Suppl 1):S576–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lloyd J, Guzman J, Giusto L, et al. Trends in third line therapy utilization for overactive bladder amongst general urologists, advanced practice providers, and FPMRS subspecialists. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(Suppl 1):S584.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knight JC. Practitioner application: the impact of patient navigation on diabetes. J Healthc Manag. 2018;63(3):e41–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    English TM, Masom D, Whitman MV. The impact of patient navigation on diabetes. J Healthc Manag. 2018;63(3):e32–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serrell EC, Hansen M, Mills G, et al. Prostate cancer navigation: initial experience and association with time to care. World J Urol 2018. 2019;37(6):1095–1101.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abrams P, Kelleher CJ, Kerr LA, Rogers RG. Overactive bladder significantly affects quality of life. Am J Manag Care. 2000;6(Suppl):S580–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nitti V. Clinical impact of overactive bladder. Rev Urol. 2002;4(Suppl 4):S2–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milsom I, Abrams P, Cardoza L, et al. How widespread are the symptoms of overactive bladder and how are they managed? A population-based prevalence study. BJU Int. 2001;87:760–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schabert VF, Bavendam T, Goldberg EL, Trocio JN, Brubaker L. Challenges for managing overactive bladder and guidance for patient support. Am J Manag Care. 200915 (4 Suppl):S118–22.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moskowitz D, Adelstein SA, Lucioni A, Lee UJ, Kobashi KC. Use of third line therapy for overactive bladder in a practice with multiple subspecialty providers—are we doing enough? J Urol. 2018;199(3):779–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Metro Health Hospital: University of Michigan Health Department of Urological SurgeryWyomingUSA

Personalised recommendations