OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs of routine care for female urinary incontinence, health-related quality of life, and willingness to pay for incontinence improvement. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study at 5 U.S. sites, 293 incontinent women quantified supplies, laundry, and dry cleaning specifically for incontinence. Costs were calculated by multiplying resources used by national resource costs and presented in 2005 United States dollars (2005). Health-related quality of life was estimated with the Health Utilities Index. Participants estimated willingness to pay for 25-100% improvement in incontinence. Potential predictors of these outcomes were examined using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Mean age was 56 +/- 11 years; participants were racially diverse and had a broad range of incontinence severity. Nearly 90% reported incontinence-related costs. Median weekly cost (25%, 75% interquartile range) increased from 0.37 dollars (0, 4 dollars) for slight to 10.98 dollars (4, 21 dollars) for very severe incontinence. Costs increased with incontinence severity (P < .001). Costs were 2.4-fold higher for African American compared with white women (P < .001) and 65% higher for women with urge compared with those having stress incontinence (P < .001). More frequent incontinence was associated with lower Health Utilities Index score (mean 0.90 +/- 0.11 for weekly and 0.81 +/- 0.21 for daily incontinence; P = .02). Women were willing to pay a mean of 70 dollars +/- 64 dollars per month for complete resolution of incontinence, and willingness to pay increased with income and greater expected benefit. CONCLUSION: Women with severe urinary incontinence pay 900 dollars annually for incontinence routine care, and incontinence is associated with a significant decrement in health-related quality of life. Effective incontinence treatment may decrease costs and improve quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs of routine care for female urinary incontinence, health-related quality of life, and willingness to pay for incontinence improvement. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study at 5 U.S. sites, 293 incontinent women quantified supplies, laundry, and dry cleaning specifically for incontinence. Costs were calculated by multiplying resources used by national resource costs and presented in 2005 United States dollars (2005). Health-related quality of life was estimated with the Health Utilities Index. Participants estimated willingness to pay for 25-100% improvement in incontinence. Potential predictors of these outcomes were examined using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Mean age was 56 +/- 11 years; participants were racially diverse and had a broad range of incontinence severity. Nearly 90% reported incontinence-related costs. Median weekly cost (25%, 75% interquartile range) increased from 0.37 dollars (0, 4 dollars) for slight to 10.98 dollars (4, 21 dollars) for very severe incontinence. Costs increased with incontinence severity (P < .001). Costs were 2.4-fold higher for African American compared with white women (P < .001) and 65% higher for women with urge compared with those having stress incontinence (P < .001). More frequent incontinence was associated with lower Health Utilities Index score (mean 0.90 +/- 0.11 for weekly and 0.81 +/- 0.21 for daily incontinence; P = .02). Women were willing to pay a mean of 70 dollars +/- 64 dollars per month for complete resolution of incontinence, and willingness to pay increased with income and greater expected benefit. CONCLUSION:Women with severe urinary incontinence pay 900 dollars annually for incontinence routine care, and incontinence is associated with a significant decrement in health-related quality of life. Effective incontinence treatment may decrease costs and improve quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Leah Kleinman; Emma McIntosh; Mandy Ryan; Jordana Schmier; Joseph Crawley; G Richard Locke; Gregory De Lissovoy Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-06-24
Authors: Rachel Hess; Alison J Huang; Holly E Richter; Chiara C Ghetti; Vivian W Sung; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; W Thomas Gregory; JoAnn V Pinkerton; Catherine S Bradley; Stephen R Kraus; Rebecca G Rogers; Leslee L Subak; Karen C Johnson; Lily A Arya; Michael Schembri; Jeanette S Brown Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Leslee L Subak; Patricia S Goode; Linda Brubaker; John W Kusek; Michael Schembri; Emily S Lukacz; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Peggy Norton; Sharon L Tennstedt Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Alexandra Vermandel; Stefan De Wachter; Tessi Beyltjens; Diona D'Hondt; Yves Jacquemyn; Jean Jacques Wyndaele Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Vivian W Sung; Delia S West; Alexandra L Hernandez; Thomas L Wheeler; Deborah L Myers; Leslee L Subak Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Xiao Xu; Julie S Ivy; Divya A Patel; Sejal N Patel; Dean G Smith; Scott B Ransom; Dee Fenner; John O L Delancey Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: William Hollingworth; Jonathan D Campbell; Jonathan Kowalski; Arliene Ravelo; Isabelle Girod; Andrew Briggs; Sean D Sullivan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 4.147