Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prevalence of urinary incontinence and anal incontinence: an internet-based cross-sectional study of female Turkish University students

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this cross-sectional, epidemiological study was to characterize urinary tract and bowel symptom prevalence and the extent of discomfort/bother associated with them. Additionally, the authors aimed to explore factors associated with both conditions among Turkish female university students. Also, an insight into women’s “communication regarding urinary incontinence and anal incontinence” with their family members was sought.

Methods

This is an internet-based national cross-sectional study. A study-specific 30-item questionnaire containing validated measures of symptom prevalence and bother (Urogenital Distress Inventory questionnaire short form and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory) were incorporated into the survey. Out of a total of 2,125 e-mail invitations that were sent, 1,226 responded with data included in this analysis.

Results

The age and BMI of all respondents were 26.53 ± 10.082, 23.45 ± 6.609 respectively. Nine hundred and eighty-five (80.5%) respondents claimed that they did not suffer a UI episode in the last year, whereas 10 people (0.08%) claimed that they had a urinary incontinence episode every day. Three hundred and fifty-seven responders (29.1%) stated that they suffered from “gas incontinence,” 6 (0.5%) stool incontinence, and 20 (1.6%) declared that they had episodes of both stool and gas incontinence. Five hundred and forty-four participants (44%) reported that they had family relatives with a problem of “urinary incontinence” and 576 (47%) stated they had a conversation on “urinary incontinence.” Seventy-five of the responders (6.1%) stated that they had a family member with “anal incontinence” and 246 (20.1%) responded that they had a conversation regarding “anal incontinence” with them.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that the prevalence of UI was 19.5%. Twenty-nine percent stated they suffered “gas incontinence,” 0.5% stool incontinence, and 1.6% declared that they had episodes of both stool and gas incontinence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available upon inquiry to the authors.

References

  1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mostafaei H, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Hajebrahimi S, et al. Prevalence of female urinary incontinence in the developing world: a systematic review and meta-analysis—a report from the Developing World Committee of the International Continence Society and Iranian Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(4):1063–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Milsom I, Coyne KS, Nicholson S, et al. Global prevalence and economic burden of urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):79–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Viereck V, Gamper M, Walser C, Fesslmeier D, Münst J, Zivanovic I. Combination therapy with botulinum toxin and bulking agent—an efficient, sustainable, and safe method to treat elderly women with mixed urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40(7):1820–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Schreiner L, Nygaard CC, Dos Santos TG, Knorst MR, da Silva Filho IG. Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation to treat urgency urinary incontinence in older women: 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(3):687–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gommesen D, Nohr EAA, Qvist N, Rasch V. Obstetric perineal ruptures—risk of anal incontinence among primiparous women 12 months postpartum: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(2):165.e1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nordenstam J, Altman D, Brismar S, Zetterstrom J. Natural progression of anal incontinence after childbirth. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20(9):1029–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sultan AH, Monga A, Lee J, Emmanuel A, Norton C, Santoro G, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female anorectal dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:10–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Markland AD, Richter HE, Fwu CW, Eggers P, Kusek JW. Prevalence and trends of urinary incontinence in adults in the United States, 2001 to 2008. J Urol. 2011;186(2):589–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Okeahialam NA, Thakar R, Ilczyszyn A, Sultan AH. Anal and urinary incontinence in nulliparous women–prevalence and associated risk factors. Post Reprod Health. 2021;27(2):89–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cam C, Sakalli M, Ay P, Cam M, Karateke A. Validation of the short forms of the incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ-7) and the urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6) in a Turkish population. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaplan PB, Sut N, Sut HK. Validation, cultural adaptation and responsiveness of two pelvic-floor-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7, in a Turkish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162(2):229–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bush SH, Parsons HA, Palmer JL, Li Z, Chacko R, Bruera E. Single- vs. multiple-item instruments in the assessment of quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag.2010;39:564–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. J Mark Res. 2007;44:175–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ural ÜM, Gücük S, Ekici A, Topçuoğlu A. Urinary incontinence in female university students. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(2):367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Samuelsson E, Victor A, Svärdsudd K. Determinants of urinary incontinence in a population of young and middle-aged women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(3):208–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dockter M, Kolstad AM, Martin KA, Schiwal LJ. Prevalence of urinary incontinence: a comparative study of collegiate female athletes and non-athletic controls. J Womens Health Phys Ther. 2007;31(1):12–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Svare JA, Hansen BB, Lose G. Prevalence of anal incontinence during pregnancy and 1 year after delivery in a cohort of primiparous women and a control group of nulliparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(8):920–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Steinberg AC, Collins SA, O’Sullivan DM. The impact of flatal incontinence on quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(5):539.e1–539.e13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cattani, L, Gillor M, Dietz HP. Does flatus incontinence matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:1673–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Treister-Goltzman Y, Peleg R. Urinary incontinence among Muslim women in Israel: risk factors and help-seeking behavior. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(4):539–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Siddiqui NY, Levin PJ, Phadtare A, Pietrobon R, Ammarell N. Perceptions about female urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(7):863–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Johannessen HH, Wibe A, Stordahl A, Sandvik L, Mørkved S. Anal incontinence among first time mothers–What happens in pregnancy and the first year after delivery? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(9):1005–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Meinds RJ, van Meegdenburg MM, Trzpis M, Broens PM. On the prevalence of constipation and fecal incontinence, and their co-occurrence, in the Netherlands. Int J Colorect Dis. 2017;32:475–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moezi P, Salehi A, Molavi H, et al. Prevalence of chronic constipation and its associated factors in Pars cohort study: a study of 9000 adults in Southern Iran. Middle East J Dig Dis. 2018;10(2):75–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. McCrea GL, Miaskowski C, Stotts NA, Macera L, Varma MG. A review of the literature on gender and age differences in the prevalence and characteristics of constipation in North America. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;37(4):737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the women who provided the survey data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Medicine Unit, Bezmialem Vakif University, Fatih, Turkey

    Ayse Filiz Gokmen Karasu & Caglar Cetin

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Bezmialem Vakif University, Fatih, Turkey

    Özge Pasin

  3. Medical Faculty, Bezmialem Vakif University, Fatih, Turkey

    Melike Karacabay

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bezmialem Vakif University, Fatih, Turkey

    Fatma Basak Tanoglu

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Suleymaniye Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gulsah Ilhan

Authors
  1. Ayse Filiz Gokmen Karasu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caglar Cetin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Özge Pasin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melike Karacabay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatma Basak Tanoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gulsah Ilhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.F.G.K.: protocol/project development; C.C.: protocol/project development/manuscript writing/editing; O.P.: manuscript writing/editing/statistical analysis; M.K.: data collection and management/manuscript writing; F.B.T.: data collection and management/manuscript writing; G.I.: manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayse Filiz Gokmen Karasu.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karasu, A.F.G., Cetin, C., Pasin, Ö. et al. Prevalence of urinary incontinence and anal incontinence: an internet-based cross-sectional study of female Turkish University students. Int Urogynecol J 34, 2309–2315 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-023-05573-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-023-05573-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation