Urinary incontinence in women in relation to occupational status

Abstract

Through this cross-sectional study the authors explore urinary incontinence in women in relation to occupational status and environment. Data from the fourth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2008-2009) were used (n = 5,928) excluding those aged under 19 or over 65 years, male, with renal disease, and with missing data. Urinary incontinence was prevalent in working women. Compared to unemployed women, the adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) for women working in services/sales was 1.62 (1.21-2.19); for paid workers was 1.81 (1.20-2.73); and for self-employed workers was 1.46 (1.05-2.03). Compared to unemployed women, the adjusted odds ratio for working women with a daytime work schedule was 2.14 (1.18-3.87), while for those with evening work schedules, it was 1.35 (1.05-1.74). Urinary incontinence was significantly associated with various occupational environments: an unclean and uncomfortable workplace, dangerous job and probability of accidents, feeling pressed for time, awkward position for long periods, and carrying heavy weights. These findings suggest that urinary incontinence was prevalent in working women and was associated with occupational status and working environment. Therefore, improving occupational status and environment for working women-such as modifying the working schedule, posture, and workplace atmosphere-are needed to prevent urinary incontinence.

Occupation and lower urinary tract symptoms in women: A rapid review and meta‐analysis from the PLUS research consortium

“…Of the eight publications that evaluated broader occupational groups, three studies reported prevalence rates (two reported UI and one OAB) across occupational groups . In multivariable analyses from two of the three studies, women working in manual labor jobs had an increased odds of UI (OR 6.9, 95%CI 5.7‐8.5) and OAB (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.6‐1.8) compared to women in non‐manual occupations or unemployed women .…”

“…[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] Of the eight studies that compared women across broad occupation groups, the authors reported specific occupation types as employed versus non-employed, paid versus non-paid, and manual versus non-manual. [13][14][15]20,[44][45][46] One of the eight examined occupation type as manual, non-manual, sales/ service versus unemployed. 13 Studies also varied in the type of bladder symptoms reported, the frequency of the symptom recorded, and the use of validated measures to ascertain symptoms (Table 1).…”

“…Despite the limited number of studies and lack of direct comparisons across broad occupation groups, the data are supportive of a role for occupation group in the prevalence of LUTS. From the three studies that directly compared UI and OAB rates across workforce groups, those with higher manual labor demands and those in service/retail had an increased odds of UI compared to those in other workforce groups . Women with manual occupations may have more physical demands at work (eg, heavy lifting or strenuous activity), which may precipitate stress UI, or have limited access to toilets in the workplace due to time or environmental constraints.…”

“…Many women in specific occupations also engage in adaptive behaviors to manage voiding needs that include decreasing fluid and caffeine intake, wearing absorptive products for protection, and avoiding toileting . Since these reviews, a few recent studies comparing OAB or UI across broad occupation types, such as women in service/sales occupations, non‐manual (managers/professionals) versus manual labor occupations, and unemployed women or women who choose to stay at home, have been published …”

“…11,12 Since these reviews, a few recent studies comparing OAB or UI across broad occupation types, such as women in service/sales occupations, non-manual (managers/professionals) versus manual labor occupations, and unemployed women or women who choose to stay at home, have been published. [13][14][15] We hypothesize that occupation types have variations in the prevalence of LUTS. These variations could arise because of urinary-holding behaviors, including infrequent voiding with prolonged holding, due to various environmental factors related to toilet access.…”