| Literature DB >> 28086759 |
Lea F Schumpf1, Nathan Theill2, David A Scheiner3, Daniel Fink3, Florian Riese2,4, Cornelia Betschart3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specific knowledge of urinary incontinence (UI) and its interrelation with physical and cognitive health is essential to working towards prevention of UI and to improving quality of treatment and care. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between UI and the activities of daily living (ADL) hierarchy scale, the cognitive performance scale (CPS) and comorbid conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Activities of daily living (ADL); Cognitive performance scale (CPS); Comorbidities; Nursing home; Urinary incontinence
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28086759 PMCID: PMC5237224 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-017-0414-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Fig. 1Derivation of Study sample
Characteristics of continent versus incontinent females upon admission to a nursing home
| All | No UI | UI | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| All | 100% | 45.3% | 54.7% |
| Age | |||
| 65– 74 | 8.7% | 51.8% | 48.2% |
| 75 – 84 | 37.2% | 48.2% | 51.8% |
| 85 – 94 | 48.3% | 43.1% | 56.9% |
| >94 | 5.8% | 34.4% | 65.6% |
| ADL Hierarchy | |||
| 0 (Independent) | 19.0% | 78.7% | 21.3% |
| 1 (Supervision) | 10.9% | 66.2% | 33.8% |
| 2 (Limited) | 19.3% | 47.6% | 52.4% |
| 3 (Extensiv 1) | 25.5% | 32.5% | 67.5% |
| 4 (Extensiv 2) | 12.4% | 25.1% | 74.9% |
| 5 (Dependent) | 11.4% | 21.9% | 78.1% |
| 6 (Total dependence) | 1.6% | 3.9% | 96.1% |
| Cognitive performance scale | |||
| 0 (Intact) | 26.9% | 69.2% | 30.8% |
| 1 (Borderline Intact) | 18.1% | 52.1% | 47.9% |
| 2 (Mild Impairment) | 15.7% | 44.7% | 55.3% |
| 3 (Moderate Impairment) | 24.2% | 33.4% | 66.6% |
| 4 (Mod. Severe Impairment) | 3.8% | 19.6% | 80.4% |
| 5 (Severe Impairment) | 9.7% | 13.5% | 86.5% |
| 6 (Very Severe Impairment) | 1.6% | 2.9% | 97.1% |
| Number of comorbidites | |||
| 0 | 5.8% | 56.9% | 43.1% |
| 1 | 14.9% | 49.0% | 51.0% |
| 2 | 23.0% | 46.3% | 53.7% |
| 3 | 22.6% | 44.7% | 55.3% |
| 4 | 15.9% | 41.8% | 58.2% |
| 5 | 9.4% | 41.2% | 58.8% |
| 6 | 5.0% | 39.9% | 60.1% |
| 7 | 2.1% | 41.9% | 58.1% |
| 8 | 0.8% | 36.1% | 63.9% |
| 9 | 0.3% | 41.6% | 58.4% |
| 10 | 0.1% | 33.3% | 66.7% |
| 11 ( | 0.0% | 23.1% | 76.9% |
| Limitation in rang of join motion | |||
| Arm | |||
| 0 (no limitation) | 71.2% | 49.3% | 50.7% |
| 1 (limitation on one side) | 15,4% | 40.9% | 59.1% |
| 2 (limitation on both side) | 13.3% | 28.6% | 71.4% |
| Hand | |||
| 0 (no limitation) | 82.5% | 47.8% | 52.2% |
| 1 (limitation on one side) | 9.3% | 37.3% | 62.7% |
| 2 (limitation on both side) | 8.2% | 28.1% | 71.9% |
| Leg | |||
| 0 (no limitation) | 64.8% | 51.1% | 48.9% |
| 1 (limitation on one side) | 16.4% | 42.6% | 57.4% |
| 2 (limitation on both side) | 18.8% | 27.3% | 72.7% |
| Foot | |||
| 0 (no limitation) | 77.9% | 49.5% | 50.5% |
| 1 (limitation on one side) | 9.0% | 38.5% | 61.5% |
| 2 (limitation on both side) | 13.1% | 24.7% | 75.3% |
| Loss of voluntary movement | |||
| Arm | |||
| 0 (no loss) | 70.9% | 49.7% | 50.3% |
| 1 (partial loss) | 26.4% | 35.2% | 64.8% |
| 2 (full loss) | 2.7% | 27.1% | 72.9% |
| Hand | |||
| 0 (no loss) | 81.8% | 48.20% | 51.8% |
| 1 (partial loss) | 16.0% | 33.20% | 66.8% |
| 2 (full loss) | 2.2% | 23.10% | 76.9% |
| Leg | |||
| 0 (no loss) | 63.9% | 51.8% | 48.2% |
| 1 (partial loss) | 33.1% | 34.6% | 65.4% |
| 2 (full loss) | 3.1% | 22.8% | 77.2% |
| Foot | |||
| 0 (no loss) | 77.1% | 49.8% | 50.2% |
| 1 (partial loss) | 20.0% | 31.1% | 68.9% |
| 2 (full loss) | 3.0% | 21.6% | 78.4% |
Fig. 2Association between prevalence of urinary incontinence and the ADL hierarchy scale and the CPS. Higher numbers in ADL and CPS indicate higher levels of impairment (zero = unimpaired)
Logistic regression analysis for urinary incontinence with ADL hierarchy, CPS, age, and comorbidities as predictors (model 1), and additional interaction between ADL hierarchy and CPS (model 2, interaction terms not shown in table). In both models, age 65–74, ADL hierarchy of 0, CPS score of 0, and having none of the tested diseased served as reference categories
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | p-value | Odds ratio | 95% CI | p-value | |
| ADL Hierarchy | ||||||
| 0 (Independent) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 1 (Supervision) | 1.238 | 1.14–1.35 | <.001 | 1.427 | 1.22–1.69 | <.001 |
| 2 (Limited) | 2.723 | 2.54–2.92 | <.001 | 2.232 | 1.99–2.50 | <.001 |
| 3 (Extensiv 1) | 4.701 | 4.39–5.04 | <.001 | 3.293 | 2.95–3.68 | <.001 |
| 4 (Extensiv 2) | 6.209 | 5.71–6.76 | <.001 | 3.831 | 3.29–4.46 | <.001 |
| 5 (Dependent) | 7.364 | 6.74–8.05 | <.001 | 4.353 | 3.72–5.09 | <.001 |
| 6 (Total dependence) | 16.598 | 10.3–26.9 | <.001 | 30.25 | 3.70–248 | 0.001 |
| Cognitive performance scale | ||||||
| 0 (Intact) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 1 (Borderline Intact) | 1.619 | 1.52–1.72 | <.001 | 1.349 | 1.18–1.54 | <.001 |
| 2 (Mild Impairment) | 2.217 | 2.07–2.37 | <.001 | 1.406 | 1.21–1.63 | <.001 |
| 3 (Moderate Impairment) | 2.975 | 2.78–3.19 | <.001 | 1.287 | 1.05–1.59 | 0.170 |
| 4 (Mod. Severe Impairment) | 4.990 | 4.36–5.72 | <.001 | 1.338 | 0.48–3.70 | 0.575 |
| 5 (Severe Impairment) | 6.902 | 6.20–7.68 | <.001 | 1.599 | 0.74–3.46 | 0.233 |
| 6 (Very Severe Impairment) | 12.593 | 7.31–21.7 | <.001 | 5.988 | 0.68–52.5 | 0.106 |
| Age | ||||||
| 65– 74 | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 75 – 84 | 1.201 | 1.11–1.30 | <0.001 | 1.189 | 1.10–1.29 | <0.001 |
| 85 – 94 | 1.452 | 1.34–1.57 | <0.001 | 1.409 | 1.30–1.53 | <0.001 |
| > 94 | 1.754 | 1.56–1.97 | <0.001 | 1.677 | 1.49–1.89 | <0.001 |
| Comorbidities (Reference not diseased) | ||||||
| Diabetes Mellitus | 1.189 | 1.12–1.26 | <0.001 | 1.181 | 1.12–1.25 | <0.001 |
| Arthrose/Arthritis | 1.530 | 1.10–1.21 | <0.001 | 1.155 | 1.10–1.21 | <0.001 |
| Dementia | 1.090 | 1.04–1.16 | <0.001 | 1.107 | 1.05–1.17 | <0.001 |