Urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction in elderly men

Defining and prioritizing modifiable risk factors towards the co-creation of a urinary incontinence self-management intervention for older men: A sequential multimethod study protocol

Urinary incontinence (UI), characterized by involuntary urine leakage is a chronic, embarrassing and stigmatizing condition that is under-reported and under-treated). UI is under-prioritized and under-researched, particularly in older men (defined here as men 65+), and there have been calls for more targeted research focusing on this specific group. No existing self-management interventions focus on the needs of older men and none incorporate the perspectives of older men into their development. Furthermore, health inequalities and disparities in continence services for men, and a low level of health seeking behavior in men with UI make it crucial to incorporate their perspectives into intervention development to ensure optimal outcomes. The study will identify risk factors for UI that are potentially amenable to self-management in older men, assess their self-efficacy in managing UI, and determine what modifiable risk factors older men feel are pragmatic to include as part of a self-management program. We will conduct and report a sequential multi-method design consisting of a Delphi study among healthcare experts and a survey among older men with UI, according to the Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies (CREDES) Checklist and the Checklist for Reporting Of Survey Studies (CROSS). A geographically dispersed, multidisciplinary group of 30 health care professionals (urologists, geriatricians, family physicians, and nurses) involved in continence care and a representative sample of at least 128 ethnically diverse older men will participate in a Delphi survey and an older men's survey respectively. The healthcare experts will evaluate an evidence-synthesized list of UI risk factors to determine those potentially amenable to self-management. Delphi rounds will be repeated until consensus threshold of 75% is reached. Thereafter, older men recruited via stratified sampling of population subgroups will rate a list of expert-identified potentially modifiable risk factors to indicate which factors they deem practicable and can prioritize. Older men's survey questionnaires will capture information on patients' characteristics (socio-demographics and UI-related items). The Geriatric Self-Efficacy Index for UI (GSE-UI Index) as well as a Likert scale to assess perceived capability and willingness to modify the expert-identified UI modifiable risk factors will be included. Data will be analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.

A scoping review of risk factors for urinary incontinence in older men

BACKGROUND

Most epidemiological studies have not systematically identified or categorized risk factors for urinary incontinence (UI) in older men, despite a higher prevalence than in younger men. Considering the burden of UI, an understanding of risk factors can inform cost-effective prevention/treatment programs. This scoping review aimed to identify and categorise risk factors for UI in older men, identify gaps in the evidence, and opportunities for future research.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method for scoping reviews guided the conduct and reporting of this review alongside the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist. JBI's Population, Concept, and Context approach framed the inclusion criteria (all evidence sources on UI risk factors that included older men [65 +]). We employed JBI's three-step search strategy, which included a limited initial search in Ovid MEDLINE, a detailed comprehensive database search, and a search of reference lists of included studies, Google Scholar and grey literature. There were no restrictions on language, study type, or publication date. Two independent reviewers screened, selected, and extracted eligible studies. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles that met the inclusion criteria identified 98 risk factors across six categories. Behavioural risk factors, reported by only two studies, were the least investigated of all the categories, whereas medical factors/diseases were the most investigated. No genetic factors were documented. The top five risk factors were increasing age/advanced age (n = 12), Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (n = 11), Diabetes Mellitus (n = 11), Detrusor overactivity (n = 10), limitation in physical function/ADL disability (n = 10), increased Body Mass Index (BMI)/overweight/obesity (n = 8), Dementia (n = 8), and Parkinson's disease (n = 7).

CONCLUSION

There is a dearth of evidence to describe the role behavioural risk factors have in UI in older men. These factors may play a role in health promotion and disease prevention in this area.

REGISTRATION

A protocol detailing the methods was developed and published, and is registered in the Open Science Framework [Feb 07 2023; https://osf.io/xsrge/ ].

[Nurses' interventions in the management of urinary incontinence in the elderly: an integrative review]

The objective of this study was to verify the strategies that nurses use to manage urinary incontinence (UI) in the elderly. An integrative literature review was performed on the following databases: WEB OF SCIENCE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and CINAHL, in the period from 2006 to 2010. A total of 186 articles were located, and after excluding duplicates and performing a careful reading of the full articles, the sample was comprised of seven articles. Most studies utilize an overall approach to urinary incontinence, without characterizing the type or the subjects' claims. Only one study addressed the management of urinary incontinence in the elderly with dementia; another specified the type (hyperactive bladder). Therefore, there is a need for further clinical nursing studies regarding the management of urinary incontinence, aiming to provide scientific evidence to support this practice.

A person-time analysis of hospital activity among cancer survivors in England

BACKGROUND

There are around 2 million cancer survivors in the UK. This study describes the inpatient and day case hospital activity among the population of cancer survivors in England. This is one measure of the burden of cancer on the individual and the health service.

METHODS

The national cancer registry data set for England (1990-2006) is linked to the NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Cohorts of survivors were defined as those people recorded in the cancer registry data with a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer before 2007. The person-time of prevalence in 2006 for each cohort of survivors was calculated according to the cancer type, sex, age and time since diagnosis. The corresponding HES episodes of care in 2006 were used to calculate the person-time of admitted hospital care for each cohort of survivors. The average proportion of time spent in hospital by survivors in each cohort was calculated as the summed person-time of hospital activity divided by the summed person-time of prevalence. The analysis was conducted separately for cancer-related episodes and non-cancer-related episodes.

RESULTS

Lung cancer survivors had the highest intensity of cancer-related hospital activity. For all cancers, cancer-related hospital activity was highest in the first year following diagnosis. Breast and prostate cancer survivors had peaks of cancer-related hospital activity in the relatively young and relatively old age groups. The proportion of time spent in hospital for non-cancer-related care was much lower than that for cancer-related care and increased gradually with age but was generally constant regardless of time since diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The person-time approach used in this study is more revealing than a simple enumeration of cancer survivors and hospital admissions. Hospital activity among cancer survivors is highest soon after diagnosis. The effect of age on the amount of hospital activity is different for each type of cancer.