This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Teh-wei Hu, PhD; D. Lynne Kaltreider, MEd; Thomas J. Rohner, MD
University of California Berkeley

JAMA. 1989;262(18):2538-2539.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply. —

The nursing research assistants employed in follow-up did not know the patients' assignments (treatment or control) to avoid potential datacollection bias. There are several possible explanations for the durability of the training effect. First, the study may have had a carryover effect on the homes' regular nursing aides, who may have been more responsive even during follow-up because a research study was being conducted. Second, encouraging patients to hold their urine (a study objective) may have helped physiologically to reduce incontinence, especially among the 34% more cognitively alert treatment participants (Mini-Mental State Examination score, >17). Last, the reinstatement of hourly checking during follow-up may have created a "checking effect" that reminded patients they needed to toilet. However, any checking effect should have affected both the experimental and the control groups. Since the experimental group consistently improved more than the control group, we are inclined to give more . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?