Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community

Open access
Perry, S, Shaw, C, McGrother, C, Matthews, R J, Assassa, R P, Dallosso, H, Williams, K, Brittain, K R, Azam, U, Clarke, M, Jagger, C, Mayne, C, Castleden, C M·2002·Gut

Abstract

Background: Prevalence studies of faecal incontinence in the general population are rare and the impact of faecal incontinence on quality of life has not been previously addressed. Aims: To establish the prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults in terms of frequency of leakage, degree of soiling, and level of impact on quality of life. Methods: In a cross sectional postal survey, 15 904 adults aged 40 years or more (excluding residents of nursing and residential homes) were selected randomly by household from the Leicestershire Health Authority patient register. Participants were asked to complete a confidential health questionnaire. Major faecal incontinence was defined as soiling of underwear or worse with a frequency of several times a month or more. Respondents were also asked if bowel symptoms had an impact on their quality of life. Results: From a total sample of 10 116 respondents, 1.4% reported major faecal incontinence and 0.7% major faecal incontinence with bowel symptoms that had an impact on quality of life. Major faecal incontinence was significantly associated with a lot of impact on quality of life (odds ratio 12.4, 95% confidence interval 7.5–20.6). Incontinence was more prevalent and more severe in older people but there was no significant difference between men and women. Conclusions: This study has confirmed that faecal incontinence is a fairly common symptom, particularly in older people. Faecal incontinence in men has received little attention in the past and the results from this study indicate that it is as much of a problem in men as it is in women while the level of unmet need in this group is high. Estimates of need for health care for this symptom should be multidimensional and assess both the severity of symptoms and the impact it has on quality of life.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gut.50.4.480

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 533

Metadata

Authors
Perry, S., Shaw, C., McGrother, C., Matthews, R. J., Assassa, R. P., Dallosso, H., Williams, K., Brittain, K. R., Azam, U., Clarke, M., Jagger, C., Mayne, C., & Castleden, C. M.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-04
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
480-484
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2121952506
Cited by
533
References
0
FWCI
14.45
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: Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.50.4.480
The paper
Perry, S., Shaw, C., McGrother, C., Matthews, R. J., Assassa, R. P., Dallosso, H., Williams, K., Brittain, K. R., Azam, U., Clarke, M., Jagger, C., Mayne, C., & Castleden, C. M. (2002). Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.50.4.480

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.