Table 3.

Impact of the ePAQ-PF Intervention on Urinary and Fecal Incontinence Discussion Rates and Treatment in the Full Sample and in Those Reporting Incontinence

	All participants			Past month incontinence
	ePAQ-PF intervention	Control	OR [95% CI]	ePAQ-PF intervention	Control	OR [95% CI]
Urinary incontinence
All ages	n = 145	n = 139		n = 94	n = 87
Clinic note mentiona	27%	19%	1.6 [0.9–2.8]	42%	25%	2.2 [1.1–4.1]*
Discussed (patient report)b	33%	22%	1.7 [1.0–2.9]*	46%	33%	1.7 [0.9–3.1]
MD/NP askedc	18%	4%	4.8 [1.9–12.1]***	23%	6%	4.9 [1.7–13.5]**
Treated/referreda	16%	11%	1.7 [0.8–3.2]	25%	15%	1.9 [0.9–4.0]
Age 40–59	n = 101	n = 90		n = 64	n = 54
Clinic note mentiona	26%	23%	1.1 [0.6–2.2]	40%	30%	1.6 [0.8–3.4]
Discussed (patient report)b	33%	27%	1.4 [0.7–2.6]	48%	41%	1.3 [0.6–2.9]
MD/NP askedc	19%	7%	3.2 [1.2–8.3]*	25%	9%	3.2 [1.1–9.5]*
Treated/referreda	20%	11%	2.0 [0.9–4.6]	22%	19%	1.6 [0.6–3.9]
Age ≥60 years	n = 43	n = 49		n = 30	n = 33
Clinic note mention	33%	12%	3.8 [1.2–11.8]*	47%	18%	4.3 [1.3–14.1]*
Discussed (patient report)	33%	14%	2.9 [1.0–8.1]*	43%	21%	2.8 [0.9–8.6]
MD/NP asked	16%	0%	(p = 0.003)**,f	20%	0%	(p = 0.007)**,f
Treated/referred	21%	8%	3.1 [0.9–10.8]	30%	9%	4.3 [1.0–17.7]*
Fecal incontinence
All ages	n = 144	n = 139		n = 20	n = 21
Clinic note mentiona	3%	2%	1.3 [0.3–5.9]	20%	10%	2.1 [0.5–8.6]
Discussed (patient report)d	14%	6%	2.5 [1.1–6.0]*	35%	15%	3.5 [0.9–13.0]
MD/NP askede	9%	3%	3.5 [1.1–11.0]*	17%	5%	4.0 [0.4–42.4]
Treated/referreda	1%	1%	1.0 [0.1–6.9]	10%	10%	1.1 [0.1–8.3]

^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001 (Pearson chi-squared).

^aMissing = 1.

^bMissing = 4.

^cMissing = 6.

^dMissing = 7.

^eMissing = 8.

^fUnable to calculate OR since reference is 0.

CI, confidence interval; NP, nurse practitioner; OR, odds ratio.