What this is
- This research investigates () among older women in urban and rural Malaysia.
- It examines the prevalence, associated risk factors, and the impact of on quality of life.
- A total of 814 women aged 60 and above participated, with data collected through interviews and assessments.
Essence
- is more prevalent among older women in rural areas (23%) compared to urban areas (16%). Ethnicity and chronic constipation are significant risk factors for .
Key takeaways
- The prevalence of is 23% among rural older women vs. 16% among urban counterparts. This indicates a higher burden of in rural settings.
- Chronic constipation increases the risk of by 3.384× among rural women, highlighting a critical health concern that can be addressed with appropriate management.
- Rural women experience greater limitations in daily activities and emotional distress due to compared to urban women, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions.
Caveats
- The study's cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between risk factors and .
- Self-reported data may introduce bias, as participants might underreport due to stigma or lack of awareness.
Definitions
- Urinary incontinence (UI): Involuntary loss of urine, often leading to distress and impact on quality of life.
Simplified
Background
The global ageing population is rapidly increasing. Sixty five percent of the older population are women and experience higher rates of morbidity and disability due to longer life expectancies [1]. Defined as an involuntary loss of urine, urinary incontinence (UI) is one of the main causes of poor health in old age and is often perceived as a ‘women’s health’ issue [2, 3]. With the global prevalence of UI ranging between 3 to 53% among community dwelling older women, this condition is often underreported and unaddressed [4]. This is due to the misconception that UI is a part of the natural ageing process, or due to embarrassment, fear and unawareness of effective treatment options [5].
The significant risk factors of UI among older women within general population include increasing age, pre-existing medical conditions, impaired cognition and decline in physical function [4, 6]. Older adults dealing with UI are prone to skin infections, sexual dysfunction, loss of self-esteem, dependency, depression, frailty, institutionalisation, increased caregiver burden and economic cost [4, 7–9]. Moreover, incontinence disrupts normality of daily living and has an impact on psychosocial health leading to a decline in quality of life [10].
In the Malaysian setting, an ‘urban’ area is defined as a combined population of 10,000 people or more, whereas a rural area is one with a population of less than 10,000 people. About 60% of the population in the urban setting is involved in non-agricultural pursuits, while in the rural area it is more to do with agriculture and natural resources [11]. Rural areas are synonymous to poor living environments, may have less adequate healthcare services and older women there experience poorer health with less pro-active treatment seeking behaviors as compared to their counterparts in urban areas [12, 13]. Socioeconomic levels which includes location of settlement have been identified as predictors of UI [14, 15].
Information regarding the differences in prevalence, risk factors and quality of life among incontinent community dwelling older women within urban and rural settings is limited. Our aim was to conduct a secondary analysis of our previous study to examine the UI prevalence, risk factors and impact on quality of life among community dwelling older women within urban and rural populations.
Methods
This study is a secondary analysis of the third phase of the larger longitudinal study “Neuroprotective Model for Health Longevity among Malaysian Elderly” (LRGS TUA). This large-scale study was designed to investigate the role of cognitive decline and associated risk factors through a comprehensive multi-dimensional assessment among community dwelling older adults [16]. It involved community dwelling older adults aged 60 years and above (n = 1560). Participants’ recruitment, study methodology and baseline characteristics have been previously described in detail [16].
Study population
Our present study included community dwelling older women who participated in phase 3 of LRGS TUA between February to September 2016, across four states in Peninsular Malaysia (n = 814). Those with severe hearing and/or visual impairments, severe cognitive impairments (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Score = < 15) [16] and were unable to speak or understand English or local dialects were excluded. Categorization of participants into urban and rural population was done based on stratification of the participating districts for each state as determined by the Malaysian Department of Statistics [11]. Ethical approval (UKM 1.5.3.5/244/NN-060-2013) and informed written consent of the participants were obtained. Participants were informed that information obtained at the time of data collection could be used for future research and publication purposes with the assurance of anonymity.
Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics
Sociodemographic data and clinical characteristics was obtained via structured interview. It included age, ethnicity, marital status, years of education and history of smoking. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated after obtaining height and weight. Clinical characteristics included multimorbidity (the presence of 2 or more chronic diseases [17], history of falls (sustained at least 1 fall in the past 12 months [18]), chronic constipation, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) [19]. Physical performance of participants was objectively assessed. The ‘Timed Up and Go’ (TUG) test was used to measure functional mobility and balance, whereby the more time taken (in seconds) to complete the test indicated lower functional mobility and balance. The dominant hand grip strength (HGS) was performed to quantify muscle strength in kilograms using the Jamar Plus + Hand Dynamometer (SI instruments Pty Ltd., SA, Australia). Details of screening and outcome measures included in our study, except the assessment of UI has been described by Shahar et al. [16]. Data was collected by research assistants of allied health personnel who were trained together prior to the commencement of data collection.
Urinary incontinence and quality of life assessment
Urinary incontinence was self-reported based on the response ‘yes’ if participants were experiencing ‘any involuntary leakage of urine’ [3]. Those with incontinence and without were categorised as ‘UI’ and ‘Non-UI’ respectively. Participants with UI completed the King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ) which asssessed theseverity of UI and its impact on quality of life (QoL) [20]. The KHQ was administered in both English and Malay language based on the participants’ preference. The translated Malay version KHQ was administered after establishing validity and reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha =0.87). Part 1 of KHQ described participants’ general health and perception of incontinence. Part 2 evaluated the level of limitation experienced (if any) for each quality of life domain as enumerated:
Role Limitations
Limitations of daily activities such as routine tasks within the house-hold or outside. Physical: Limitations in executing or participating in physical or functional activities.
Social Limitations
Quality of relationships and interactions with others (family & friends) and limitation in participation of social activities.
Personal Relationships
Quality of relationship with sexual partner, sex life and effect on marriage (Not applicable to those who were unmarried or sexually inactive).
Emotions
Focuses on level of depression, anxiety, nervousness, loss of self-esteem and self-respect being experienced.
Sleep/Energy
Disturbance in sleep quality and sleep deprivation.
Severity Measures
Not to be confused with severity of incontinence, ‘severity measures’ refers to measures taken to manage incontinence such as usage of pads for leakage, restriction of fluid intake, changing under garments. It also assesses worry of unpleasant odour.
Part 3 of KHQ evaluated the severity of incontinence based on 9 different incontinence characteristics (frequency, nocturia, urgency, stress incontinence, nocturnal enuresis, post-voidal dribbling, intercourse incontinence, urinary tract infections, bladder pain). Each component of the KHQ was rated with a Likert-type scale (‘very good’ to ‘very poor’; or ‘not at all’ to ‘a lot’). Scores of parts 1 and 2 of the KHQ was quantified in percentages, whereas part 3 was documented as total score. Higher percentage or score indicated lower quality of life [20, 21].
Statistical analysis
Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic and clinical characteristic was performed among those with incontinence, comparing those from rural and urban populations. After a univariate analysis, a binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the risk factors of incontinence within population strata, with UI (yes or no) as the dependant variable. Regression analysis was carried out separately for urban and rural population. The impact of UI on quality of life was analysed using independent sample t-test using population strata (urban/rural) as the dependant variable. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. The IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22 was used for analysis.
Results
General characteristics of participants
| Variable | Total N | Strata n (%) | -ValueP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 814 | Urban431 (52.9) | Rural383 (47.1) | ||
| Age (years) (mean±s.d.) | 71.7±5.7 | 71.2±5.4 | 72.4±6.1 | 0.003**+ |
| Ethnicity | <0.001***# | |||
| Malay | 477 | 151 (35.0) | 326 (85.1) | |
| Chinese | 298 | 244 (56.6) | 54 (14.1) | |
| Indian | 39 | 36 (8.4) | 3 (0.8) | |
| Marital Status | <0.001***# | |||
| Married | 387 | 229 (53.1) | 158 (41.3) | |
| Unmarried/Widowed/Divorced | 427 | 202 (46.9) | 225 (58.7) | |
| Years of Education | <0.001***# | |||
| ≤ 6 years | 665 | 316 (73.3) | 349 (91.1) | |
| > 6 years | 149 | 115 (26.7) | 34 (8.9) | |
| Smoking Habit | 0.23# | |||
| Smoker | 17 | 7 (1.6) | 10 (2.6) | |
| Non/Past Smoker | 797 | 424 (98.4) | 373 (97.4) | |
| BMI (kg/m) (mean±s.d.)2 | 25.1±4.7 | 25.3±4.5 | 24.9±4.9 | 0.198+ |
| Multimorbidity | 0.32 | |||
| < 2 chronic diseases | 474 | 258 (59.9) | 216 (56.4) | |
| ≥ 2 chronic diseases | 340 | 173 (40.1) | 167 (43.6) | |
| Urinary Incontinence | 0.008*# | |||
| No | 657 | 362 (84.0) | 295 (77.0) | |
| Yes | 157 | 69 (16.0) | 88 (23.0) | |
| History of Falls | 0.125# | |||
| No | 661 | 359 (83.3) | 302 (78.9) | |
| Yes | 144 | 701 (16.7) | 74 (21.1) | |
| Chronic Constipation | 0.101# | |||
| No | 749 | 402 (93.3) | 347 (90.6) | |
| Yes | 65 | 29 (6.7) | 36 (9.4) | |
| Mild Cognitive Impairment | 0.116# | |||
| No | 741 | 387 (89.8) | 354 (92.4) | |
| Yes | 73 | 44 (10.2) | 29 (7.6) | |
| Physical Performance (mean±s.d) | ||||
| Functional Mobility (TUG) (sec) | 12.2±4.0 | 11.2±3.6 | 13.3±4.2 | <0.001***+ |
| Muscle Strength (HGS) (kg) | 18.9±4.8 | 20.6±4.8 | 17.5±4.4 | <0.001***+ |
Prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI)
A total of 157 (19%) older women self-reported UI and was found to be higher among the rural population (p < 0.01) (Table 1). The findings of this study determined the prevalence of UI among urban and rural population to be 16 and 23%, respectively.
Factors associated with UI within urban and rural populations
| Variable | Total | Urban n (%) | -ValueP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 431 | UI 69 (16.0) | Non-UI 362 (84.0) | ||
| Age (years) (mean ± s.d.) | 71.2 ± 5.4 | 71.1 ± 5.5 | 71.2 ± 5.4 | 0.812+ |
| Age Range | 0.678# | |||
| 60–69 | 194 | 32 (46.4) | 162 (44.8) | |
| 70–79 | 199 | 32 (46.4) | 167 (46.1) | |
| ≥ 80 | 38 | 5 (7.2) | 33 (9.1) | |
| Ethnicity | 0.042*# | |||
| Malay | 151 | 33 (47.8) | 118 (32.6) | |
| Chinese | 244 | 30 (43.5) | 214 (59.1) | |
| Indian | 36 | 6 (8.7) | 30 (8.3) | |
| Marital Status | 0.518# | |||
| Married | 229 | 37 (53.6) | 192 (53.0) | |
| Unmarried/Widowed/Divorced | 202 | 32 (46.4) | 170 (47.0) | |
| Education | 0.637# | |||
| ≤ 6 Years | 316 | 49 (71.0) | 267 (73.8) | |
| > 6 Years | 115 | 20 (29.0) | 95 (26.2) | |
| Smoking History | 0.312# | |||
| Smoker | 7 | 2 (2.9) | 5 (1.4) | |
| Non/Past Smoker | 424 | 67 (97.1) | 86 (98.6) | |
| BMI (kg/m) (mean ± s.d.)2 | 25.3 ± 4.5 | 26.0 ± 4.5 | 25.2 ± 4.5 | 0.2+ |
| Multimorbidity | 0.091# | |||
| < 2 chronic diseases | 258 | 35 (50.7) | 223 (61.6) | |
| ≥ 2 chronic diseases | 173 | 34 (49.3) | 139 (38.4) | |
| History of Falls | 0.455# | |||
| No | 359 | 57 (82.6) | 302 (83.4) | |
| Yes | 70 | 12 (17.4) | 58 (16.6) | |
| Chronic Constipation | 0.073# | |||
| No | 402 | 61 (88.4) | 341 (94.2) | |
| Yes | 29 | 8 (11.6) | 21 (5.8) | |
| Mild Cognitive Impairment | 0.072# | |||
| No | 387 | 58 (84.1) | 329 (85.0) | |
| Yes | 44 | 11 (15.9) | 33 (15.0) | |
| Physical Performance (mean ± s.d) | ||||
| Functional Mobility (TUG) (seconds) | 11.2 ± 3.6 | 11.9 ± 4.4 | 11.1 ± 3.3 | 0.059+ |
| Muscle Strength (HGS) (kg) | 20.1 ± 4.6 | 20.6 ± 4.8 | 19.9 ± 4.6 | 0.27+ |
| Variable | Total | Rural n (%) | -ValueP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 383 | UI 88 (23.0) | Non-UI 295 (77.0) | ||
| Age (years) (mean ± s.d.) | 72.4 ± 6.1 | 73.2 ± 6.6 | 72.2 ± 5.9 | 0.184+ |
| Age Range | 0.678# | |||
| 60–69 | 145 | 30 (34.1) | 115 (39.0) | |
| 70–79 | 183 | 38 (43.2) | 145 (49.2) | |
| ≥ 80 | 55 | 20 (22.7) | 35 (11.8) | |
| Ethnicity | 0.039*# | |||
| Malay | 326 | 78 (88.6) | 248 (84.1) | |
| Chinese | 54 | 9 (10.2) | 45 (15.3) | |
| Indian | 3 | 1 (1.1) | 2 (0.7) | |
| Marital Status | 0.458# | |||
| Married | 158 | 26 (29.5) | 132 (44.7) | |
| Unmarried/Widowed/Divorced | 225 | 62 (70.5) | 163 (55.3) | |
| Education | 0.173# | |||
| ≤ 6 Years | 349 | 77 (87.5) | 272 (92.2) | |
| > 6 Years | 34 | 11 (12.5) | 23 (7.8) | |
| Smoking History | 0.312# | |||
| Smoker | 10 | 2 (2.3) | 8 (2.7) | |
| Non/Past Smoker | 373 | 86 (97.7) | 287 (97.3) | |
| BMI (kg/m) (mean ± s.d.)2 | 24.9 ± 4.9 | 25.2 ± 5.2 | 24.7 ± 4.8 | 0.428+ |
| Multimorbidity | 0.374 | |||
| < 2 chronic diseases | 216 | 46 (52.3) | 170 (57.6) | |
| ≥ 2 chronic diseases | 167 | 42 (47.7) | 125 (42.4) | |
| History of Falls | 0.447# | |||
| No | 302 | 69 (78.4) | 233 (79.0) | |
| Yes | 74 | 18 (21.6) | 56 (21.0) | |
| Chronic Constipation | < 0.001***# | |||
| No | 347 | 71 (80.7) | 276 (93.6) | |
| Yes | 36 | 17 (19.3) | 19 (6.4) | |
| Mild Cognitive Impairment | 0.516# | |||
| No | 354 | 81 (92.0) | 279 (94.6) | |
| Yes | 29 | 7 (8.0) | 22 (5.4) | |
| Physical Performance (mean ± s.d) | ||||
| Functional Mobility (TUG) (seconds) | 13.3 ± 4.2 | 14.2 ± 5.4 | 13.0 ± 3.6 | 0.008**+ |
| Muscle Strength (HGS) (kg) | 18.6 ± 4.8 | 17.5 ± 4.4 | 19.0 ± 4.8 | < 0.001***+ |
Risk factors of UI within urban and rural populations
| Risk Factor | Adj. OR ((%%CI) | β | -valuep |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.016 (0.956–1.080) | 0.016 | 0.61 |
| Ethnicity | 0.04 | ||
| Chinese | 0.430 (0.224–0.825) | −0.845 | 0.011* |
| Indian | 0.741 (0.242–2.267) | −0.299 | 0.6 |
| Education | 1.375 (0.700–2.700) | 0.318 | 0.355 |
| Body Mass Index | 0.999 (0.936–1.066) | −0.001 | 0.976 |
| Multimorbidity | 1.710 (0.943–3.100) | 0.536 | 0.077 |
| History of Falls | 1.274 (0.608–2.671) | 0.242 | 0.521 |
| Chronic Constipation | 1.718 (0.638–4.624) | 0.541 | 0.284 |
| Mild Cognitive Impairment | 0.639 (0.296–1.382) | − 0.447 | 0.255 |
| Muscle Strength (HGS) | 1.056 (0.989–1.127) | 0.054 | 0.105 |
| Mobility & Balance (TUG) | 1.061 (0.977–1.153) | 0.06 | 0.158 |
| Risk Factor | Adj. OR ((%%CI) | β | -valuep |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.021 (0.968–1.076) | 0.021 | 0.448 |
| Ethnicity | 0.045 | ||
| Chinese | 1.307 (0.429–3.987) | 0.268 | 0.637 |
| Indian | 0.537 (0.185–1.778) | 0.557 | 0.335 |
| Education | 1.911 (0.776–4.708) | 0.648 | 0.159 |
| Body Mass Index | 1.036 (0.976–1.099) | 0.035 | 0.243 |
| Multimorbidity | 1.140 (0.657–1.999) | 0.131 | 0.647 |
| History of Falls | 0.935 (0.476–1.837) | −0.068 | 0.845 |
| Chronic Constipation | 3.384 (1.556–7.360) | 1.219 | 0.002** |
| Mild Cognitive Impairment | 0.939 (0.361–2.443) | −0.063 | 0.897 |
| Muscle Strength (HGS) | 0.947 (0.890–1.008) | −0.054 | 0.088 |
| Mobility & Balance (TUG) | 1.029 (0.959–1.105) | 0.029 | 0.424 |
Quality of life of older women within urban and rural populations
| Domains of KHQ | Total N | Strata n (%) | -ValueP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 157 | Urban 69 (43.9) | Rural 88 (56.1) | ||
| Part 1 n (%) | ||||
| General Health Perception | 0.040*+ | |||
| Very Good | 6 | 0 | 6 (6.8) | |
| Good | 100 | 51 (73.9) | 49 (55.7) | |
| Fair | 46 | 16 (23.2) | 30 (34.1) | |
| Poor | 5 | 2 (2.9) | 3 (3.4) | |
| Very Poor | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Incontinence Impact | 0.204 | |||
| Not at All | 6 | 5 (7.2) | 1 (1.1) | |
| A Little | 80 | 36 (52.2) | 44 (50.0) | |
| Moderately | 67 | 26 (37.8) | 41 (46.6) | |
| A Lot | 4 | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.8) | |
| Part 2 (mean score ± s.d) (%) | ||||
| Role Limitation | 38.7 ± 18.4 | 34.5 ± 17.9 | 42.0 ± 18.2 | 0.011* |
| Physical Limitation | 50.8 ± 22.4 | 46.9 ± 21.6 | 54.0 ± 22.6 | 0.048* |
| Social Limitation | 17.4 ± 22.6 | 12.1 ± 21.1 | 21.6 ± 22.9 | 0.008** |
| Personal Relationship | 4.1 ± 11.7 | 3.1 ± 8.2 | 4.9 ± 13.7 | 0.346 |
| Emotions | 31.4 ± 27.5 | 25.3 ± 24.8 | 36.2 ± 28.6 | 0.013* |
| Sleep | 46.2 ± 27.1 | 38.9 ± 24.9 | 51.9 ± 27.5 | 0.003** |
| Severity Measures | 34.8 ± 21.7 | 32.4 ± 23.1 | 36.7 ± 20.6 | 0.212 |
| Part 3 (mean score ± s.d) | ||||
| Overall Symptom Severity | 8.6 ± 2.5 | 8.9 ± 2.6 | 8.3 ± 2.4 | 0.105 |
| Frequency | 2.2 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 0.7 | 0.766 |
| Nocturia | 1.7 ± 1.5 | 1.8 ± 1.2 | 1.7 ± 1.2 | 0.699 |
| Urge Incontinence | 1.0 ± 0.9 | 1.1 ± 1.0 | 0.9 ± 0.8 | 0.087 |
| Stress Incontinence | 2.4 ± 0.6 | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 2.4 ± 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Nocturnal Enuresis | 0.8 ± 0.9 | 0.9 ± 0.9 | 0.8 ± 0.8 | 0.21 |
| Post Voidal Dribbling | 0.3 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.3 ± 0.7 | 0.433 |
| Intercourse Incontinence | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.339 |
| Urinary Tract Infections | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.473 |
| Bladder Pain | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.0 ± 0.1 | 0.011* |
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first of its kind as it compares the prevalence, its associated risk factors and quality of life among Malaysian community dwelling older women within the urban and rural settings. Employing the definition recommended by the International Continence Society for prevalence studies, the prevalence of UI was reported to be higher among older women in the rural community setting [3].
Among older women in rural settings, prevalence of UI in our large-scale study (23%) is considered high compared to a smaller previous study (3%) which was conducted in one state with smaller number of participants [22]. This sizeable difference could be explained by the study design. Prevalence of UI in our study is between the 10% reported in India, 40% in Spain and 36% in the United States among rural populations [23–25].
In the urban population, the prevalence of UI in our study was reported at 16%. This is comparatively higher compared to Singapore (5%), but lower than Puerto Rico (35%) [26, 27]. There are limited studies reporting prevalence of UI among older women specific to urban or rural population. It was observed that prevalence reported in our current study and those from Asia were lower when compared to Western countries.
It could be due to normalising UI as a consequence of ageing and cultural sensitivity [28] resulting in underreporting of UI among older women in Asian rural settings. Lower socioeconomic background, poorer living conditions, inaccessibility or unawareness of healthcare services and dismissing incontinence as a health concern could have also accounted for higher prevalence of UI among older women in rural communities [12, 14, 15]. In addition, primary healthcare providers often overlook or omit asking UI related questions during health screenings or check-ups in rural settings [29].
Our study results showed different risk factors of UI among older women in urban and rural settings. Ethnicity was significantly associated with incontinence among older women in both urban and rural population (p < 0.05). However, ethnicity was found to be the only significant risk factor for urban older women. Urban older women of Chinese ethnicity were found to be 60% less likely to experience UI when compared to Malay older women. Incontinence and ethnic disparity has yet to be studied in detail in Malaysia. However, Malaysian Chinese have been found to be least likely to report poor health and had lower prevalence among non-communicable diseases when compared to the Malay and Indian populations [30]. A study in the United States examining prevalence of incontinence and its association to a particular ethnicity deduced that anatomical and physiological differences such as ‘lower urethral closure pressure’, may increase susceptibility of leakage [31]. This could potentially be the rationale behind our study’s findings as well. Future research may consider delving further into Asian ethnic disparity and likelihood of UI.
Although chronic constipation, functional mobility and muscle strength were associated with UI in older women residing in rural setting (p < 0.05), only chronic constipation appeared as a significant risk factor. Chronic constipation was found to increase the risk of incontinence by 3.4 times among older women in our study. Similarly, chronic constipation was reported to be a predictor of UI among women residing in a rural community in India [21]. This is in agreement with findings of past studies which correlated UI with the increase in intra-abdominal pressure among individuals with severe constipation [5, 32, 33].
Falling under the mnemonic ‘DIAPPERS’, chronic constipation due to stool impaction is a treatable cause of UI with the right medication and lifestyle modification [5]. Poor physical function namely functional mobility and strength has been strongly correlated with increased likelihood of incontinence, especially among older adults who are home-bound or living in institutions [34]. Decline in physical performance is associated with increased risk of falls and it hampers the ability to carry functional tasks which is a vital aspect of successful toileting [35, 36]. The participants in our study were community dwelling and considerably independent in terms of daily functionality, which could explain why physical function was not found to be a significant risk factor of UI.
The existence of urban-rural gradient among incontinent has been established whereby women from urban communities perceived incontinence to negatively impact quality of life and were more likely to seek treatment as compared to those in rural communities [37]. In our study, older women from both populations equally perceived impact of UI in general between little to moderate. In regard to specific domains of daily life, it impacted the rural population more. It is possible that older women from rural populations with lower education levels are ignorant or have less understanding of UI as a health condition. They probably perceived themselves to have decent wellbeing despite experiencing limitations in multiple facets of daily living due to incontinence [38, 39].
In our study, older women in the rural setting dealt with higher limitations in role, social and physical aspects of daily living due to incontinence. It could be inferred that inability to execute habitual tasks may cripple one’s sense of purpose, resulting in a loss of personal identity [40]. Social life plays an important role among rural non-institutionalised older adults and ‘social exclusion’ can be hazardous to the community [41, 42]. Maintaining strong ties within the community such as frequent social calls among friends and relatives are integral components of daily living in the rural setting and is less valued within urban populations [43]. It could be deduced that rural older women were more sociable than urban hence experiencing more impact on this domain when dealing with UI.
Incontinent older women in the rural population were also more emotionally disturbed, expressing higher levels of depression, anxiety and low self-esteem. Feelings of loneliness and depression have been found to be more prevalent among rural older adults living alone [40, 44]. This is more likely to increase with the presence of UI, fear of stigmatisation and embarrassment associating incontinence with emotional vulnerability [40, 44]. Quality of sleep was poorer among rural older women as they dealt with tiredness and sleep disturbances in sleep domain due to UI and it can be explained by the presence of nocturia and nocturnal enuresis. These two common symptoms of UI have been enlisted as causes of chronic sleep deprivation among those with UI [45].
The strength of our study is that we investigated incontinence among older women from both urban and rural settings. In addition, the participants were non-institutionalised and were ethnically diverse. The findings of our study can be used as a comparison with nations of similar, multi-ethnic population. However, the cross-sectional design of this study is only able to determine the risk factors but not examine the causal relationship of potential risk factors and UI. As UI is perceived to be a considerably sensitive health issue, the possibility of underreporting or self-reporting bias may have occurred. Objective assessment of UI was not administered due to non-feasibility of the test in this large-scale study. Also, treatment seeking behaviours for incontinence was not investigated which would be highly recommended for future studies. Clinically, addressing the modifiable risk factors prior to incontinence management could possibly improve the treatment outcome in both urban and rural settings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our study showed that UI is prevalent among community dwelling older women. However, its impact on quality of life was higher among older women in the rural population. Risk factors of UI were different in both urban and rural populations. This suggests that specifically tailored UI prevention and treatment strategies could be beneficial, especially in older women residing at rural areas.