Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00939432

Taboo Perception of Incontinence, Depression and Cancer

Objective/study hypothesis To evaluate how much of a taboo UI is and how it compares to other medical conditions that may also pose a taboo issue like depression and cancer.

Background Urinary incontinence (UI) is a highly prevalent condition with more than 200 million people worldwide being affected. While physical health does not necessarily have to be impaired much, restriction of social activities leads to isolation, a significant reduction in quality of life and will often bring about subsequent morbidity. Despite its prevalence, many patients suffering from UI go undiagnosed and untreated. Patients often hesitate to report the problem, and health care professionals often do not ask about it. In a study Minassian (2003) estimated that just one in four patients actively seeks medical attention. The reason for this may lie in the shame, embarrassment, and stigma associated with this condition, which in turn pose significant barriers to seeking professional treatment. Although mentioned by many narrative reviews and included in some epidemiological papers on UI, surprisingly we found no data addressing the taboo of UI exclusively. The aim of our study therefore was

Methods/Design A 13-question self-administered questionnaire was developed and face validity tested by 2 of the authors (KH, EH). The anonymous questionnaire contained simple questions on gender and age and then asked yes/no questions on whether test persons knew people with UI, or suspected other people to be incontinent, if they would address this issue with the suspected person, and if they thought that UI was a taboo issue in the society. On a scale from 0 - 10 they were then asked to grade the amount of embarrassment and anxiety if they themselves were incontinent, compared to depression or cancer. A few questions on knowledge of the condition of UI and to whom test persons would turn to in case of UI concluded the short questionnaire, which took about 5 minutes to fill in. A convenience sample of 150 test persons from waiting areas of a teaching hospital and in private practices of general practitioners in Austria agreed to take part in the study, with an additional 10 persons (6.2%) declining after being informed about the subject. Data were analysed with the SPSS 10.0.5 software package using the U-test, Chi-square-test, Yates-correction, Fisher's exact test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test where appropriate.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Medical University of Vienna Austria

Vienna, State of Vienna, 1090, Austria

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Subjects older than 18 years willing to take part in study mentally capable to understand and fill in anonymous questionnaire

Exclusion criteria

  • incomplete questionnaire

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. Perception of given medical condition as a taboo issue

    Time frame: single point in time

Secondary outcomes

  1. Knowledge of treatment options of incontinence

    Time frame: single point in time

  2. Knowledge of friends or relatives with incontinence

    Time frame: single point in time

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Medical University of Vienna

Other

Registry information

Official study title

The Greatest Taboo- Urinary Incontinence, Depression and Cancer

Important dates

Study start
2005
Primary completion
2006
Study completion
2007
First posted
Jul 15, 2009
Registry last updated
Jul 15, 2009

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.