Factors associated with quality of life among women with fecal incontinence.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Fecal incontinence (FI) is a distressing, highly prevalent condition affecting quality of life (QOL). The aim of our study was to identify predictors of moderate/severe health-related QOL among women with FI. METHODS: Data were collected from women presenting to a multispecialty clinic from January 2005 to July 2009 with FI. All completed questionnaires on demographics and validated instruments including the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument (FIQL), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) for depression, and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with moderate/severe FI. RESULTS: The study included 226 women with an average age of 59.2 years (SD = 14.1); 92 % were Caucasian, 67 % were married, and the average body mass index was 30.0 (SD = 8.6). Their QOL was moderately/severely affected by FI in 35.6 %. Mean overall FIQL score was 2.5 (SD = 0.8). Median QOL subscale measures were: lifestyle = 2.7 (SD = 1.0), coping = 2.09 (SD = 0.9), depression = 2.8 (SD = 1.0), and embarrassment = 2.2 (SD = 0.9). Average FISI score was 31.6 (SD = 15.7) and average depression score on the PHQ was 8.93 (SD = 8.1). In univariate analyses, diabetes, irritable bowel symptoms, prior hysterectomy, history of previous medical care for FI, higher FISI and PHQ scores were associated with moderate/severe FIQL scores (p < 0.05). Higher PHQ scores and prior hysterectomy significantly predicted moderate/severe QOL in logistic regression analysis (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm that women with higher depression scores and prior hysterectomy have moderate/severe QOL impairment. When evaluating FI, screening for depression should be undertaken.

Factors associated with symptom severity in women presenting with fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Fecal incontinence (FI) affects 2-12% of the US population. Identification of factors associated with worsening symptoms has important implications for prevention and treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to assess factors associated with symptom severity in women presenting with FI. DATA SOURCES: This was a prospective survey study. STUDY SELECTION: Patients presenting to the Michigan Bowel Control Program Clinic for FI were prospectively enrolled between May 2005 and May 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with fecal incontinence severity. RESULTS: Data on 231 women was analyzed with a mean age of 59.2 years (SD = 14.2) and mean BMI of 30.0 (SD = 8.6); 92% were white. Mean FISI score was 32.4 (SD = 15.3). Two-thirds of patients had a type 1-4 stool on the Bristol stool scale. Forty-one percent of subjects complained of urinary incontinence, 56.2% had an episiotomy, 29% had an operative delivery, and 15.1% reported a severe laceration with childbirth. The majority of patients (86.1%) reported FI for greater than 1 year, and 65.4% had previously sought care for FI. Bivariate analysis revealed that diabetes, IBS, urinary incontinence, history of operative delivery or severe laceration, fecal urgency, longer history of symptoms, previous health care for FI, and belief in treatment were positively associated with worse FISI score. In multiple linear regression analysis, increased FI symptom severity was shown to be associated with fecal urgency (0.0004), history of episiotomy (0.04), urinary incontinence (0.02), and diabetes mellitus (0.004). LIMITATIONS: This was a cross-sectional survey study performed at a Tertiary care center. CONCLUSION: Patients with a history of episiotomy, diabetes, urinary incontinence, and fecal urgency have increased FI symptom severity. Proactive screening of patients with these medical histories is needed.

Gastroenterologists utilize the referral for EGD to enhance colon cancer screening more effectively than primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening rates among patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms undergoing oesophagogastroduodenoscopy have not been previously established. We hypothesize that gastroenterologists seize this opportunity more frequently than primary care providers. AIMS: To assess colorectal cancer screening rates at the time of direct access oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and gastrointestinal clinic evaluation for upper gastrointestinal symptoms. To compare rates in the 6 months following the oesophagogastroduodenoscopy in both cohorts of patients. METHODS: Retrospective review. primary care physician group: direct access oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (n = 247) vs. gastrointestinal group (n = 278). Multivariable regression analysis utilized to assess predictors of screening outcome. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening at the time of referral was 54%. Among the 243 unscreened patients, an additional 29% in the primary care physician group vs. 59% in the gastrointestinal group completed colorectal cancer screening in 6 months of follow-up. Nearly 60% patients evaluated in gastrointestinal clinic for upper symptoms had documented discussion, and 99% of those patients underwent colonoscopy (P < 0.001). Gastrointestinal consultation increased the probability of colorectal cancer screening completion eightfold (95% CI 3.69-18.96). CONCLUSIONS: At the time of evaluation for upper symptoms, half of patients were not current with colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Referrals for the direct access oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and, more importantly, the gastroenterology consult represent key opportunities for colorectal cancer screening education and improved compliance.