Table 8.
Sensitivity analysis: adjusted associations between incontinence status and quality of life (QOL)/ productivity measures using negative binomial regression models (n = 324) †
| Quality of life outcomes |
Incontinence status |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Base-case analysis |
Sensitivity analysis |
|||
| Incontinence (Yes vs. No) | Average number of UI episodes per day | Number of UI episodes (Ordinal) c | ||
|
EQ-5D utility score
a
|
0.95 (0.15) |
0.99 (0.02) |
0 ≤ n ≤ 4 |
0.97 (0.16) |
| n > 4 |
0.91 (0.17) |
|||
|
I-QOL score
a
|
0.83 (0.04)*** |
0.98 (0.01)** |
0 ≤ n ≤ 4 |
0.86 (0.05)** |
| n > 4 |
0.78 (0.05)*** |
|||
|
OAB-q symptom severity score
a
|
1.38 (0.08)*** |
1.03 (0.01)*** |
0 ≤ n ≤ 4 |
1.30 (0.08)*** |
| n > 4 |
1.52 (0.10)*** |
|||
|
OAB-q HRQL total score
a
|
0.87 (0.05)** |
0.98 (0.01)** |
0 ≤ n ≤ 4 |
0.90 (0.05) |
| n > 4 |
0.81 (0.05)** |
|||
|
WPAI – percent activity impairment due to problem
a
|
1.21 (0.10)* |
1.03 (0.01)** |
0 ≤ n ≤ 4 |
1.12 (0.10) |
| n > 4 |
1.34 (0.13)** |
|||
|
WPAI – percent work time miss due to problem‡
a,b
|
2.77 (3.11) |
1.46 (0.48) |
0 ≤ n ≤ 4 |
2.89 (3.29) |
| n > 4 |
1.87 (3.86) |
|||
|
WPAI – percent impairment while working due to problem‡
a,b
|
1.04 (0.26) |
1.08 (0.05) |
0 ≤ n ≤ 4 |
0.99 (0.25) |
| n > 4 |
1.39 (0.52) |
|||
| WPAI – percent overall work impairment due to problem‡ a,b | 1.03 (0.39) | 1.02 (0.07) | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 |
1.06 (0.40) |
| n > 4 | 0.81 (0.45) | |||
†All analyses adjusted for time since diagnosis, age, male sex, race, education, insurance status, country, and whether having the following comorbidities: psychological/psychiatric conditions, hypertension, diabetes, and dementia.
‡Comorbidities were not included as covariates.
aIncidence rate ratio (standard error).
bPopulation restricted to patients that were on paid employment (n = 68).
cReference group: patients that reported no leakages.
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.