Loading…

Occupational groups and lower urinary tract symptoms: A cross‐sectional analysis of women in the Boston Area Community Health Study

Objectives The objective of this study is to inform our hypothesis that the workplace toileting environment may impact lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); we examined the prevalence of LUTS across occupational groups in the Boston Area Community Health Survey. Methods At baseline, women (n = 3205)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Neurourology and urodynamics 2024-01, Vol.43 (1), p.88-104
Main Authors: Markland, Alayne, Bavendam, Tamara, Cain, Charles, Neill Epperson, C., Fitzgerald, Colleen M., Yvette LaCoursiere, D., Shoham, David A., Smith, Ariana L., Sutcliffe, Siobhan, Rudser, Kyle
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives The objective of this study is to inform our hypothesis that the workplace toileting environment may impact lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); we examined the prevalence of LUTS across occupational groups in the Boston Area Community Health Survey. Methods At baseline, women (n = 3205) reported their occupation and frequency of 15 LUTS. Using the US Department of Labor's Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system, we categorized women into 11 standard occupational groups. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated by log‐link generalized linear models, adjusting for age, race, education, fluid intake, and parity. Women classified in Office and Administrative Support were used as the reference group given their potential for fewer workplace toileting restrictions. Results Of the 3189 women with complete data, 68% of women reported any LUTS, ranging from 57% to 82% across the SOCs. Relative to women in Office and Administrative Support (n = 576), women in Computing, Engineering, and Science (n = 64) were more likely to report any LUTS (PR = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.0–1.4) and urinating again in
ISSN:0733-2467
1520-6777
DOI:10.1002/nau.25292