OBJECTIVE: To examine the difference in cost and wetback performance between brand name and generic pads in patients with BMI under 30 and over 30. METHODS: Eight different urinary incontinence pads were selected based on their commercial availability. A leak volume of 50 cc was selected to represent large leaks. A “leak” of tap water was spilled onto each pad. After a designated amount of time, 30 seconds or 5 minutes, a subject sat on the wet pad, covered by a piece of filter paper (representing a wearer's skin) finally covered by a plastic cover to protect the subject. The 2 largest axis of spread of the water onto the filter paper were then measured. These tests were performed with a subject with a BMI under 30 and 1 with a BMI over 30. RESULTS: Urinary incontinence products varied greatly in price per pad from 8 cents for panty-liners to over 72 cents for underwear with refastenable tabs. Larger products, Ultra Plus sizes, tended to do better with increased BMI, however this result was not statistically significant. Poise products also performed significantly better with increased BMI (30s, P=0.028, 5 min, P=0.027). Walgreen's Underwear did significantly worse than all other products tested at both BMIs (P=0.001–0.047) (Table 1). Depends Underwear did significantly worse than Walgreen's Ultra Plus for a 30 second wait to sit (P=0.021), and Poise Ultra Plus for a 5 min wait to sit (P=0.18) when the subject had a BMI >30.TABLE 1: Walgreen's Underwear Compared to Other Products TestedCONCLUSION: In general, brand name products performed better than generic products. There were significant differences in product performance with different BMI. Underwear products performed worse than other products and cost the most. Overall, the longer time the wearer waits to sit, the greater the absorption of the pad and therefore less moisture to the wearer's skin.
Read full abstract