Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 89–97 | Cite as

The impact of incontinence management on informal caregivers’ quality of life

Original Article

Abstract

Background

The presence of incontinence symptoms might affect the quality of life (QoL) of those providing informal care to people suffering from them, causing social isolation, financial problems, psychological and physical exhaustion.

Aims

This study aimed at assessing whether urinary and/or fecal incontinence in people aged 60 and over affects the level of burden in their informal caregivers.

Methods

QoL was assessed amongst 304 informal caregivers of older people suffering from urinary and/or fecal incontinence, and compared to that reported by 305 caregivers of non-incontinent older relatives, all living in Italy. All participants were administered a questionnaire focused on: characteristics and conditions of the cared for; details of the care activity; emotions experienced by caregivers; attitudes of caregivers; reasons for providing care; availability of information and support; demographics.

Results

Findings show that, when no incontinence was reported, the longer was the caregiving situation, the better was the caregivers’ QoL, which was instead negatively affected by the lack of a support network. As for caregivers’ feelings, neither positive nor negative emotions influenced their QoL in a significant way. In terms of caregiver’s role, those who felt overwhelmed or loaded with responsibility reported a lower QoL, while the opposite was found among those who felt rewarded and supported, even when incontinence—of any kind—was present.

Conclusions

The management of incontinence does have a negative impact on caregivers’ QoL, but subjective factors might play a mitigating role on such an impact.

Keywords

Incontinence Caregivers Psychological burden Quality of life Aging 

Abbreviations

QoL

Quality of life

OPI

Older person with incontinence

Non-OPI

Older person without incontinence

PCA

Principal component analysis

OLS

Ordinary least squares

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study whose dataset this article is based upon and the editorial support were financed by SCA (Svenska Cellulose Aktiebolaget). The data analysis and the drafting of this article were partly funded by Eurocarers. The authors wish to thank Jon Weeks, Gemma Maurimootoo, Alexander Parker and Freya Benson from Ipsos MORI for assisting with the design of the questionnaire and providing the data. Many thanks also to Liana Spazzafumo from INRCA for her advice on statistical analysis.

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors.

Human and Animal Rights

The data collection for the study was completed by Ipsos within all the guidelines set out by the Market Research Society, and also ESOMAR standards.

Informed consent

Ipsos provides respondent anonymity in any data collected, ensuring that they enter into any research study with informed consent, and able to cease the interview at any point should they wish to.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S et al. (Eds.) (2013) Incontinence: Fifth Edition 2013. ICUD-EAUGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noimark D, Steventon N, Wagg A (2009) A qualitative study of the impact of caring for a person with urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urody 28(7):637–638Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gotoh M, Matsukawa Y, Yoshikawa Y et al. (2009) Impact of urinary incontinence on the psychological burden of family caregivers. Neurourol Urodyn 28(6):492–496. doi: 10.1002/nau.20675 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Veen R, Versteeg M, Mak S et al. (2011) Quality of life of carers managing incontinence in Europe. Survey Report 2011. http://eurocarers.org/userfiles/file/Carers%20managing%20incontinenceFinal5%2011.pdf. Accessed 22 December 2014
  5. 5.
    Langa KM, Fultz NH, Saint S et al. (2002) Informal caring time and costs for urinary incontinence in older individuals in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc 50(4):733–737. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50170.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayder D, Schnepp W (2008) Urinary incontinence—The family caregivers’ perspective. Z Gerontol Geriat 41:261–266. doi: 10.1007/s00391-008-0560-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gallagher M, Pierce LL (2002) Caregivers’ and care recipients’ perceptions of dealing with urinary incontinence. Rehab Nursing 27(1):25–31. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2002.tb01976.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomas P, Ingrand P, Lalloue F et al. (2004) Reasons of informal caregivers for institutionalising dementia patients previously living at home: the Pixel study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 19:127–135. doi: 10.1002/gps.1039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cassels C, Watt E (2003) The impact of incontinence on older spousal caregivers. J Adv Nurs 42(6):607–616. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02664.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson R, Mikulic B, Vermeylen G et al. (2009) Second european quality of life survey: overview. European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2009/02/en/2/EF0902EN.pdf. Accessed 22 December 2014
  11. 11.
    EU Life Long Learning Programme (2010) Life after care: overview report: Caring and Post Caring in Europe. http://www.lifeaftercare.eu/docs/OverviewReportFinalSept2010.pdf. Accessed 22 December 2014
  12. 12.
    Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R et al. (2007) The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5:63. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weeks J, Maurimootoo G, Parker A et al. (2012) Quality of life in carers of older people with incontinence in Italy. Dissertation, presented by Lamura G at: Global Forum on Incontinence; 2012 April 24–25; Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamura G, Mnich E, Nolan M et al. (2008) Family carers’ experiences using support services in Europe: empirical evidence from the EUROFAMCARE study. Gerontologist 48(6):752–771. doi: 10.1093/geront/48.6.752 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scientific DirectionNational Institute of Health and Science on Aging-I.N.R.C.A.AnconaItaly
  2. 2.Centre for Socio-Economic Research on AgeingNational Institute of Health and Science on Aging-I.N.R.C.A.AnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations