The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Urinary incontinence in the community--analysis of a MORI poll.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES--To investigate the prevalence of urinary incontinence among people living at home, their responses to it, and its emotional and social effects. DESIGN--Random sample of 4007 adults interviewed in their own homes. SETTING--Random sample of 178 constituency sampling points throughout Great Britain. SUBJECTS--1883 men, 2124 women aged 30 and over. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Responses to questionnaire. RESULTS--6.6% (125) men and 14.0% (297) women had been incontinent of urine at some time--2.8% (52) men and 7.5% (159) women in the previous two months and 61% (124) of these for more than four years. 52% (108) had consulted their general practitioner at the onset of incontinence and a further 31% (65) later. Doctors commonly took a urine sample (163, 54%), referred the patient to a specialist (127, 42%), and prescribed tablets (109, 36%); only 22% (66) carried out an abdominal, rectal, or vaginal examination. Patients were not embarrassed in seeing their doctor and most thought they were treated sympathetically. 60% (265) of all those affected were concerned or worried about their incontinence, and in almost half incontinence limited their daily social activities. CONCLUSION--More people with incontinence seem to be consulting their doctors about it than has been found in previous studies, but the procedures carried out by general practitioners still seem to be suboptimal. Urinary incontinence has a profound effect on the day to day lives of most of those who suffer from it.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Symptoms, bother and POPQ in women referred with pelvic organ prolapse
Mouritsen, L., & Larsen, J. P. (2003) · International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction · doi:10.1007/s00192-002-1024-1 · Cited by 168
Cross-sectional study of nocturia in both sexes: analysis of a voluntary health screening project
Schatzl, G., Temml, C., Schmidbauer, J., Dolezal, B., Haidinger, G., & Madersbacher, S. (2000) · Urology · doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00603-8 · Cited by 153
A survey of help‐seeking and treatment provision in women with stress urinary incontinence
SHAW, C., GUPTA, R. D., WILLIAMS, K. S., ASSASSA, R. P., & MCGROTHER, C. (2006) · BJU International · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.06071.x · Cited by 85
Cheater, F. M., Baker, R., Reddish, S., Spiers, N., Wailoo, A., Gillies, C., Robertson, N., & Cawood, C. (2006) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000215919.89893.8a · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Brocklehurst, J. C.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1993-03-27
- Volume
- 306
- Issue
- 6881
- Pages
- 832-834
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2036256104
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Urinary incontinence in the community--analysis of a MORI poll. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.306.6881.832
- The paper
- Brocklehurst, J. C. (1993). Urinary incontinence in the community--analysis of a MORI poll. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.6881.832
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.