Premium
A drop of self‐confidence program about urinary incontinence
Author(s) -
Szabó László,
Szabó János,
Vidor Eszter
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
neurourology and urodynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1520-6777
pISSN - 0733-2467
DOI - 10.1002/nau.24621
Subject(s) - medicine , urinary incontinence , psychosocial , incidence (geometry) , stress incontinence , population , family medicine , health care , educational program , physical therapy , surgery , psychiatry , physics , environmental health , political science , law , optics , economics , economic growth
Abstract Aim The aim of our study was to find and map untreated incontinence patients through general practitioner (GP) practices. Methods General practitioners and their assistants participated in the program (Group A). GPs of all the country were involved in a representative manner. The process of the program was preparing the education program, praxis involvement, participant education, a population screening, and by questionnaire by medical staff. In Group B urological outpatients clinics participated. Results A total of 2761 GPs, 3015 nurses, and 110 specialists participated in the program between 2011 and 2019. The population participating in the program was 162,871, 86% women and 14% men. The age range was 18–96. 68% had urinary incontinence (UI), 76% of patients had stress, and 49% had urge incontinence. Incontinence is very high (98%) among bedridden patients. On average, 20% had very little information, 40% had little information, 33% had enough information about incontinence, and 7% thought they knew everything about it. 41% reported diabetes mellitus, 33% had frequent cough and sneezing, 31% obesity as a risk factor. 30% of incontinent patients did not go to the GP and 66% to the specialist. 34% of patients who were at GPs received no information, 34% of the patients received symptomatic, and 30% did not receive treatment from the GP. Conclusion The incidence of UI is similar to that in other countries. Patient recognition care is similar, perhaps worse. The findings of this study clearly indicate that harmful physical and psychosocial effects of UI are significant and require attention of the healthcare system.