Urinary incontinence as a marker of temporality in women: a qualitative study

Abstract

Background

Urinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent in postmenopausal women. To manage UI, it necessary to improve UI screening. We aimed to analyze and understand the experience of women with UI.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with postmenopausal women (age >50 years), who were recruited from an urban general practice office. The data of the patients were analyzed using the grounded theory method to allow the conceptualization of categories to emerge.

Results

Data saturation was reached after eight interviews and was confirmed by two additional interviews. There were four conceptualizing categories: UI is a marker of temporality in women and of societal temporality; women’s information about UI is a prerequisite for screening, and the media and information providers have an impact on women’s UI experience; UI has a strong societal taboo for women (women consider UI a minor but pejorative disease and fear stigmatization); and faced with the complexity of implementing personalized screening, women recommend systematic screening by their general practitioner or gynecologist to trivialize UI and optimize its management.

Conclusions

Women were uninformed about UI. They requested that the provision of information on the female anatomy should be started in childhood.

尿失禁作为女性时间性的标志：一项定性研究

背景：尿失禁（UI）在绝经后女性中很普遍。要管理UI, 就要提高UI的筛选。我们旨在分析和了解女性UI的经历。

方法：我们对从城市全科诊所招募的绝经后女性（年龄>50岁）进行了半结构化访谈, 进行了定性研究。应用扎根理论方法分析患者的数据, 以产生概念化类别。

结果：八次访谈后达到数据饱和, 并通过另外两次访谈确认。有四个概念化类别：UI 是女性时间性和社会时间性的标志；女性关于 UI 的了解是筛查的前提, 媒体和信息提供者对女性UI感受有影响；对女性来说, UI有强烈的社会忌讳（女性认为 UI 是一种轻微但不断恶化的疾病, 并害怕个人名誉受损）；鉴于实施个性化筛查的复杂性, 建议由全科医生或妇科医生对女性进行系统筛查, 以简化 UI 并优化其管理。

结论:女性对UI知之甚少。她们要求在儿童时期就开始提供女性解剖学的信息。

Keywords:

• Urinary incontinence
• preventive care
• woman
• education

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the women who participated in this study for sharing their experiences and Prof. Maisonneuve for his valuable assistance.

Potential conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Source of funding

None.