Table 3.
Multivariate analysis of variables associated with UI and POP knowledge
| Lack of knowledge on PIKQ-UI scale (< 80% correct) | Lack of knowledge on PIKQ-POP scale (< 50% correct) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | |
| Age, years | ||||||
| 18–29 | 1.85 | 0.44–7.75 | 0.40 | 0.52 | 0.10–2.60 | 0.43 |
| 30–39 | 2.43 | 0.73–8.19 | 0.15 | 3.89 | 1.03–14.64 | 0.04 |
| 40–49 | 3.32 | 1.06–10.39 | 0.04 | 3.00 | 0.94–9.65 | 0.07 |
| 50–59 | 1.00 | ref | 1.00 | ref | ||
| 60–69 | 2.25 | 0.80–6.30 | 0.12 | 1.24 | 0.39–3.96 | 0.72 |
| 70–79 | 2.56 | 0.92–7.08 | 0.07 | 1.12 | 0.38–3.29 | 0.84 |
| ≥ 80 | 2.08 | 0.59–7.36 | 0.26 | 2.94 | 0.77–11.20 | 0.12 |
| Education | ||||||
| ≥ College | 1.00 | ref | 1.00 | ref | ||
| Some college | 0.96 | 0.45–2.09 | 0.93 | 1.27 | 0.55–2.96 | 0.58 |
| ≤ High school | 3.24 | 1.10–9.61 | 0.03 | 1.64 | 0.61–4.40 | 0.32 |
| Income | ||||||
| > $50,000 | 1.00 | ref | 1.00 | ref | ||
| $30,000 - 50,000 | 0.79 | 0.34–1.82 | 0.59 | 0.87 | 0.35–2.14 | 0.76 |
| < $30,000 | 1.85 | 0.78–4.42 | 0.17 | 1.06 | 0.43–2.64 | 0.90 |
| Race | ||||||
| White | 1.00 | ref | 1.00 | ref | ||
| African-American | 2.02 | 0.94–4.37 | 0.22 | 2.02 | 0.99–4.09 | 0.05 |
| Other | 0.36 | 0.12–1.11 | 0.12 | 0.81 | 0.23–2.77 | 0.95 |
| Internet for information | ||||||
| No | 1.00 | ref | 1.00 | ref | ||
| Yes | 1.14 | 0.56–2.32 | 0.72 | 1.23 | 0.57–2.64 | 0.60 |
| Awareness of PFDs | ||||||
| Yes | 1.00 | ref | 1.00 | ref | ||
| No: UI | 3.58 | 1.10–11.70 | 0.043 | 3.94 | 1.68–9.23 | 0.002 |
| No: POP | removed from the model* | 10.05 | 5.26–19.18 | < 0.001 | ||
| No: Fecal incontinence | 3.29 | 1.34–8.07 | 0.01 | removed from the model** | ||
| Diagnosis of PFDs | ||||||
| Yes | 1.00 | Ref | 1.00 | ref | ||
| No: UI | 2.48 | 1.13–5.45 | 0.045 | – | ||
| No: POP | – | removed from the model** | ||||
| No: FI | – | – | ||||
| No: UI, FI, and POP | – | removed from the model** | ||||
Multivariate models were used to estimate the adjusted OR for the lack of proficiency in urinary incontinence and prolapse knowledge using a combination of forward and backward stepwise regression locking in age, race, income, and education. As age as a continuous variable did not have a linear relationship with the log odds of our outcomes, it was categorized it into decades of age
The urinary incontinence knowledge multivariate analysis included 209 subjects (74% of data) and the prolapse knowledge analysis included 215 subjects (75% of data) who had values for all the covariates
Abbreviations: PIKQ prolapse and incontinence knowledge questionnaire, PFDs pelvic floor disorders, UI urinary incontinence, POP prolapse, FI fecal incontinence, ref. referent, VIF variance inflation factor
“—” Variables that did not achieve significance on bivariate analysis and so were not included for consideration in the multivariate model
*Being unaware of POP and no prior diagnosis of POP and FI were excluded from the final model due to collinearity (VIF ≥ 5)
**Being unaware of FI and no prior diagnosis of UI, POP, FI were excluded from the final model due to collinearity (VIF ≥ 5)
Bolded p-values are significant