4.2 Article

Urinary and fecal incontinence are independently associated with falls risk among older women and men with complex needs: A national population study

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 945-953

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.24266

关键词

community care assessment; epidemiology; fecal incontinence; falls risk; longitudinal analysis; population health; urinary incontinence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To determine the relationships between urinary incontinence (UI), fecal incontinence (FI), and falls risk among community-dwelling older women and men with complex needs, after controlling for confounders. Methods All community care recipients in New Zealand undergo standardized needs assessments, using the Home Care International Residential Assessment Instrument (interRAI-HC), which elicits information over multiple domains, including UI and FI frequency and falls. Consenting women and men aged greater than or equal to 65 years with at least one interRAI-HC assessment undertaken between 1 July 2012 and 1 June 2018 were investigated using multilevel mixed effects ordinal regression models, stratified by sex. Results Overall, 57 781 (61.8%) women and 35 681 (38.2%) men were eligible, contributing 138 302 interRAI-HC assessments. At first assessment, the average age was 82.0 years (range: 65-109 years); high falls risk was common, found among 8.8% of women and 12.4% of men; and 43.7% of women and 33.7% of men reported some incontinence. For women, the adjusted odds of increasing falls risk was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.18, 1.30) for those with occasional UI, 1.36 (95% CI: 1.29, 1.43) for those with frequent UI, and 1.19 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.26) for those with any FI compared with their continent counterparts. Among men, the adjusted odds were 1.49 (95% CI: 1.41, 1.58) for any UI and 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.27) for any FI. Conclusion UI and FI are common, have separate associations with falls risk among women and men, and would benefit from routine screening in primary health care for older adults.

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