4.6 Article

Urinary incontinence and disordered eating in female elite athletes

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 140-144

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.07.008

Keywords

Eating behaviour; Sports practice; Pelvic floor dysfunction; Prevalence; Stress urinary incontinence

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate the association between urinary incontinence and disordered eating, in elite female athletes. Design: This cross-sectional study included 744 young and healthy Portuguese women: 372 elite athletes and 372 age-matched non-athletes, mean age 21 +/- 5.3 years. Methods: Data regarding clinical, demographic, and sport practice characteristics were collected by questionnaire. The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form was applied to identify urinary incontinence. The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire was applied to identify disordered eating. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to estimate the association between UI and disordered eating. Results: The prevalence of urinary incontinence in athletes and non-athletes was 29.3% and 13.4%, p<0.001, respectively. No difference in prevalence of disordered eating was found between athletes (17.7%) and non-athletes (20.2%), p =0.435. Urinary incontinence was associated with disordered eating only in the athletes. After adjustment for age, type of sport, smoking and alcohol intake, athletes with disordered eating presented increased odds of urinary incontinence of any type over athletes without disordered eating (OR = 3.09; 95% CI: 1.74-5.50). Conclusions: Athletes with disordered eating were three times more likely to present urinary incontinence than women without disordered eating. There is a need for further studies to elaborate on mechanisms for this association. (C) 2018 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available