Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jul 14;15(26):3276-82.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.3276.

Impact of fecal incontinence on quality of life

Affiliations

Impact of fecal incontinence on quality of life

Lynne Bartlett et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To explore the impact of fecal incontinence (FI) on quality of life (QOL) of patients attending urogynecology and colorectal clinics (CCs).

Methods: Cross-sectional study of 154 patients (27 male) with FI, who attended the clinics at a regional hospital in North Queensland, Australia in 2003 and 2004, and completed the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQL: 1 = very affected; 4 = not affected).

Results: More than 22% of patients had their QOL affected severely by FI. Patients reported that they had not previously been asked about FI by a medical practitioner nor did they voluntarily disclose its presence. The median FIQL scores for all participants were: lifestyle = 3.24; coping = 2.23; depression = 2.42; and embarrassment = 2.33. Increasing frequency of soiling had a negative effect on all four FIQL scales (P < 0.001) as did the quantity of soiling (P < 0.01). Female CC patients had poorer FIQL scores than urogynecology clinic patients for lifestyle (P = 0.015), coping (P = 0.004) and embarrassment (P = 0.009), but not depression (P = 0.062), despite having experienced FI for a shorter period.

Conclusion: Failure to seek treatment for FI degrades the quality of patients' lives over time. FI assessment tools should incorporate the quantity of fecal loss.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Association of FIQL scales with sex and CC and UC. FIQL, Rockwood et al[22]; Box and whisker demonstrates median, IQR, minimum and maximum. P values calculated by unpaired Wilcoxin test (Mann-Whitney); QOL score of 1 represents very low functional status and 4 is not affected by FI; FIQL scales calculated as per letter to the editor, Rockwood[26].

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA, Lowry AC. Measuring fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1591–1605. - PubMed
    1. Bharucha AE, Locke GR 3rd, Seide BM, Zinsmeister AR. A new questionnaire for constipation and faecal incontinence. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:355–364. - PubMed
    1. Miner PB Jr. Economic and personal impact of fecal and urinary incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:S8–S13. - PubMed
    1. Deutekom M, Dobben AC, Dijkgraaf MG, Terra MP, Stoker J, Bossuyt PM. Costs of outpatients with fecal incontinence. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:552–558. - PubMed
    1. Ho YH, Muller R, Veitch C, Rane A, Durrheim D. Faecal incontinence: an unrecognised epidemic in rural North Queensland? Results of a hospital-based outpatient study. Aust J Rural Health. 2005;13:28–34. - PubMed

Publication types