International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 89–94 | Cite as

Physicians' perception of urinary incontinence as a health care problem in women

  • C. G. Flood
  • H. P. Drutz
Original Article


A mailed questionnaire was sent to 1500 family physicians and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada, to determine the primary care physician's perception of urinary incontinence as a health care problem. Questions involved their exposure to female patients with urinary incontinence, management of urinary incontinence, estimation of the extent of urinary incontinence as a health care problem, and the estimation of treatment success. The response rate to the survey was 18%. Fifty per cent of physicians see more than 1 patient per week with incontinence; 85% of physicians underestimated the prevalence of incontinence in the female population aged 25–64; 29% do not routinely ask about incontinence. In those patients complaining of urinary incontinence, 71% of physicians perform a physical examination and 32% try to demonstrate incontinence. Seventy per cent refer on to local urologists, and 58% to local gynecologists. The mean estimation for cure or significant improvement is 68%. It was concluded that, there is room for improved education of primary care physicians regarding the health care problem of female urinary incontinence.


Female Urinary stress incontinence Urinary symptoms 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Yarnell JG, Richards CJ, Stephenson TP. The prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence in women.J Epidemiol Community Health 1981;35:71–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holst K, Wilson PD: The prevalence of female urinary incontinence and reasons for not seeking treatment.NZ Med J 1988;101:756–758Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scotti RJ, Ostergard DR. Practical guide for triage of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE, eds. Urogynecology and urodynamics. Baltimore. Williams and Wilkins, 1991:87–98Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brink CA, Wells TJ, Dionko AC. Urinary incontinence in women.Public Health Nursing 1987;4:114–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borrie MJ, Davidson HJ. Incontinence in institutions: costs and contributing factors.Can Med Assoc J 1992;147:322–328Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iosif CS, Bekassy Z. Prevalence of genitourinary symptoms in late menopause.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1984;63:257–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dionko AC, Brock BM, Brown MB, Herzog AR. Prevalence of urinary incontinence and other urological symptoms in the noninstitutionalized elderly.J Urol 136:1022–1025Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Consensus Conference, National Institute of Health. Urinary incontinence in adults.JAMA 1989;261:2685–2690Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richardson DA. The evaluation of different surgical procedures. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE, eds. Urogynecology and urodynamics. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins 1991:413–421Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ouslander JG, Kane RL, Abrass IB. Urinary incontinence in elderly nursing home patients.JAMA 1982;248:1194–1198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecology Journal 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. G. Flood
    • 1
  • H. P. Drutz
    • 2
  1. 1.Urogynecology Clinic, Women's CenterRoyal Alexandra HospitalEdmonton
  2. 2.Section of Urogynecology Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations