4.2 Article

Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence and Associated Factors in Nursing Home Residents

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 102-107

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.22675

关键词

ageing; elderly; nursing homes; urinary incontinence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine the prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) and associated factors in the institutionalized elderly. Methods: A cross-sectional study is presented herein, conducted between October and December 2013, in 10 nursing homes in the city of Natal (Northeast Brazil). Individuals over the age of 60, who reside in institutions, were included. Hospitalized individuals and those at end of life were excluded. Data collection included sociodemographic information, UI characterization, as well as variables related to the institution itself and to health conditions (comorbidities, medication, pelvic floor surgery, Barthel Index for functional capacity, and Pfeiffer test for cognitive status). UI was verified through the Minimum Data Set (MDS) version 3.0, which was also used to assess urinary devices and UI toileting programs. The Chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test), the linear Chi-square test, and logistic regression were utilized to model associations. Results: The final sample consisted of 321 elderly, mostly females, with a mean age of 81.5 years. The prevalence of UI was 58.88% (CI 95%: 53.42-64.13) and the final model revealed a statistically significant association between UI and white race, physical inactivity, stroke, mobility impairment, and cognitive decline. The most frequent UI type was functional UI and toileting programs (prompted voiding) were only applied to approximately 8% of residents. Conclusions: It is concluded that UI is a health issue that affects more than half of the institutionalized elderly, and is associated with white race, physical inactivity, stroke, and other geriatric syndromes such as immobility and cognitive disability. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据