| Title |
Relationship of urinary incontinence and late-life disability: Implications for clinical work and research in geriatrics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, August 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00391-008-0563-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Coll-Planas, Michael D. Denkinger, Thorsten Nikolaus |
| Abstract |
The role of urinary incontinence (UI) in the disablement process model has been mainly defined according to its impact on quality of life, global wellbeing, life satisfaction, institutionalization and death, which are global outcomes of disability. Recent research focused on the "active" role of UI in the main pathway of the disablement process model, i.e. actively involved in the causes of disability. The aim of this paper is to review the complex current scientific evidence on this second active role and to define the implications for further research and for clinical work in geriatrics. The relationship between UI and disability can be classified in the following five pathways:1) UI as risk factor for functional decline and reduced physical activity through the increased risk of falls and fractures.2) Functional decline and reduced physical activity as risk factors for the onset of UI.3) Shared risk factors for UI and functional decline: white matter changes, stroke and other neurological conditions.4) UI in a unifying conceptual framework: the multifactorial etiology of geriatric syndromes.5) UI as an indicator of frailty.Understanding these pathways could improve insight into clinical, pharmacological, environmental, behavioral and rehabilitative mechanisms to define measures for the prevention and treatment of the geriatric syndromes cascade. However, research on effective interventions on these overlapping areas is still quite rare. Additionally there is an urgent need to use the standardized terminology of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), established by the International Continence Society (ICS) to find a common language in disability research. To conclude, the relationship of UI and disability is evident in different pathways. Understanding these associations can have substantial implications for both clinical work and research in this area. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2010.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie
#199
of 360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,836
of 82,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 360 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 82,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.