PURPOSE: Urinary incontinence is a dynamic condition that can progress and regress but few groups have examined risk factors for change in incontinence status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used stratified random sampling to construct a racially and ethnically diverse, population based cohort of 2,109 women 40 to 69 years old. Data were collected by questionnaires and medical record review. A second survey approximately 5 years later was completed by 1,413 women (67%) from the original cohort. The frequency of urinary incontinence was categorized as less than weekly, weekly and daily. Change in incontinence status was defined as new onset incontinence, incontinence progression or regression between frequency categories and resolution of incontinence. Predictor variables were demographics, body mass index and other medical conditions. We used logistic regression to estimate the adjusted OR and 95% CI. RESULTS: Compared to white nonHispanic women, black women were less likely to have incontinence progression (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.88). New onset incontinence was more common in women with a higher body mass index at baseline (p = 0.006) and those who experienced increased body mass index (p = 0.03) or decreased general health (p = 0.007) during the study. Participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder at baseline were more likely to report incontinence progression (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.22-5.70). Baseline incontinence type was not significantly associated with the risk of change in continence status independent of frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying risk factors for change in incontinence status may be important to develop interventions to decrease the burden of incontinence in the general population.
PURPOSE:Urinary incontinence is a dynamic condition that can progress and regress but few groups have examined risk factors for change in incontinence status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used stratified random sampling to construct a racially and ethnically diverse, population based cohort of 2,109 women 40 to 69 years old. Data were collected by questionnaires and medical record review. A second survey approximately 5 years later was completed by 1,413 women (67%) from the original cohort. The frequency of urinary incontinence was categorized as less than weekly, weekly and daily. Change in incontinence status was defined as new onset incontinence, incontinence progression or regression between frequency categories and resolution of incontinence. Predictor variables were demographics, body mass index and other medical conditions. We used logistic regression to estimate the adjusted OR and 95% CI. RESULTS: Compared to white nonHispanic women, black women were less likely to have incontinence progression (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.88). New onset incontinence was more common in women with a higher body mass index at baseline (p = 0.006) and those who experienced increased body mass index (p = 0.03) or decreased general health (p = 0.007) during the study. Participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder at baseline were more likely to report incontinence progression (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.22-5.70). Baseline incontinence type was not significantly associated with the risk of change in continence status independent of frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying risk factors for change in incontinence status may be important to develop interventions to decrease the burden of incontinence in the general population.
Authors: Gitte Rohr; Henrik Støvring; Kaare Christensen; David Gaist; Hanne Nybo; Jakob Kragstrup Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Truls Østbye; Arnfinn Seim; Katrina M Krause; John Feightner; Vladimir Hachinski; Elizabeth Sykes; Steinar Hunskaar Journal: Can J Aging Date: 2004
Authors: David H Thom; Stephen K van den Eeden; Arona I Ragins; Christina Wassel-Fyr; Eric Vittinghof; Leslee L Subak; Jeanette S Brown Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Catherine W McGrother; Madeleine M K Donaldson; Tom Hayward; Ruth Matthews; Helen M Dallosso; Colin Hyde Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2005-10-18 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Leslee L Subak; Rena Wing; Delia Smith West; Frank Franklin; Eric Vittinghoff; Jennifer M Creasman; Holly E Richter; Deborah Myers; Kathryn L Burgio; Amy A Gorin; Judith Macer; John W Kusek; Deborah Grady Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C W McGrother; M M K Donaldson; C Shaw; R J Matthews; T A Hayward; H M Dallosso; C Jagger; M Clarke; C M Castleden Journal: BJU Int Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Mary M Hunter; Sanae Nakagawa; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Miriam Kuppermann; Alison J Huang Journal: Menopause Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Catherine Bresee; Emily D Dubina; Aqsa A Khan; Claudia Sevilla; David Grant; Karyn S Eilber; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Kaitlin A Hagan; Elisabeth Erekson; Andrea Austin; Vatche A Minassian; Mary K Townsend; Julie P W Bynum; Francine Grodstein Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Shelby N Morrisroe; Larissa V Rodriguez; Pin-Chieh Wang; Ariana L Smith; Laura Trejo; Catherine A Sarkisian Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Michael M Fiegen; Kevin D Benson; Jessica D Hanson; Jennifer Prasek; Keith A Hansen; Peter VanEerden Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bela I Kudish; Cheryl B Iglesia; Robert E Gutman; Andrew I Sokol; Allison K Rodgers; Marjery Gass; Mary Jo O'Sullivan; Joseph Larson; Moeen Abu-Sitta; Barbara V Howard Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Tony Bazi; Satoru Takahashi; Sharif Ismail; Kari Bø; Alejandra M Ruiz-Zapata; Jonathan Duckett; Dorothy Kammerer-Doak Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-03-12 Impact factor: 2.894