Share this Article
Lim WM, Heng C, Wong MT, Tang CL
Correspondence: Dr Mark Wong, mark.wong@sgh.com.sg
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION Faecal incontinence (FI) is a stigmatised condition that remains a silent affliction for many populations. To date, no local study has been performed to determine its prevalence in our population. The existing literature from the West has shown highly variable rates, ranging from 0.8% to 18.0%. The aim of this study was to determine the cross-sectional prevalence of FI in Singapore and to identify at-risk groups.
METHODS A door-to-door questionnaire survey was performed between February and March 2013. We randomly selected 1,000 individuals from the electoral roll to be surveyed using the validated Comprehensive Fecal Incontinence Questionnaire.
RESULTS A total of 381 participants agreed to be enrolled in the study. The mean age of the participants was 52 (range 21–86) years, and slightly more than half of the participants were female (52.8%). Among the female participants, 73.1% had children (78.8% underwent normal vaginal delivery). The overall prevalence of FI in our study population was 4.7%. The prevalence of FI was observed to be significantly associated with increasing age (p = 0.004) and female gender (p = 0.029); women were three times more likely to suffer from FI than men.
CONCLUSION With the ageing population of Singapore, the results of the present study provide further impetus to continue public outreach efforts as well as develop clinical programmes that address the growing need for specialist treatments for people with FI.
Keywords: asian, faecal incontinence, prevalence, quality of life, questionnaire
Singapore Med J 2014; 55(12): 640-643; http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2014177
REFERENCES
| 1. Chassagne P, Landrin I, Neveu C, et al. Fecal incontinence in the institutionalized elderly: incidence, risk factors, and prognosis. Am J Med 1999; 106:185-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00407-0 | ||||
| 2. Nelson R, Norton N, Cautley E, Furner S. Community-based prevalence of anal incontinence. JAMA 1995; 274:559-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530070057030 | ||||
| 3. Giebel GD, Lefering R, Troidl H, Blöchl H. Prevalence of fecal incontinence: what can be expected? Int J Colorectal Dis 1998; 13:73-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s003840050138 | ||||
| 4. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43:9-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02237236 | ||||
| 5. Snooks SJ, Henry MM, Swash M. Faecal incontinence due to external anal sphincter division in childbirth is associated with damage to the innervation of the pelvic floor musculature: a double pathology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92:824-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb03053.x | ||||
| 6. Macmillan AK, Merrie AE, Marshall RJ, Parry BR. Design and validation of a comprehensive fecal incontinence questionnaire. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51:1502-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10350-008-9301-9 | ||||
| 7. Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36:77-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02050307 | ||||
| 8. Macmillan AK, Merrie AE, Marshall RJ, Parry BR. The prevalence of fecal incontinence in community-dwelling adults: a systemic review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47:1341-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0593-0 | ||||
| 9. Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull 2007; 133:859-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859 | ||||
| 10. Johanson JF, Lafferty J. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91:33-6. PMid:8561140 | ||||
| 11. Madoff RD, Parker SC, Varma MG, Lowry AC. Faecal incontinence in adults. Lancet 2004; 364:621-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16856-6 | ||||
| 12. Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q 1996; 60:275-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/297751 | ||||
| 13. Dare OO, Cleland JG. Reliability and validity of survey data on sexual behaviour. Health Transit Rev 1994; 4 Suppl:93-110. PMid:10150527 | ||||
| 14. Eason E, Labrecque M, Marcoux S, Mondor M. Anal incontinence after childbirth. CMAJ 2002; 166:326-30. PMid:11868640 PMCid:PMC99311 | ||||
| 15. Gjessing H, Backe B, Sahlin Y. Third degree obstetric tears; outcome after primary repair. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998; 77:736-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/j.1600-0412.1998.770707.x | ||||
| 16. de Leeuw JW, Struijk PC, Vierhout ME, Wallenburg HC. Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG 2001; 108:383-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00090.x | ||||
| 17. Donnelly V, Fynes M, Campbell D, et al. Obstetric events leading to anal sphincter damage. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92:955-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00255-5 | ||||
| 18. Lal M, H Mann C, Callender R, Radley S. Does cesarean delivery prevent anal incontinence? Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101:305-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02716-3 | ||||
| 19. Nygaard IE, Rao SS, Dawson JD. Anal incontinence after anal sphincter disruption: a 30-year retrospective cohort study. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89:896-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00119-1 | ||||