No abstract

Genetic factors play a substantial role in the development of urge and mixed incontinence, whereas the role of genetic factors in stress incontinence is less prominent.

Standardized questions about incontinence give reproducible answers and produce information that is comparable to a long open interview.

Background. Familial clustering has been reported for urinary incontinence (stress and urge), but different etiologies for the two types of incontinence have been suggested.Objective. The aim of this study was to estimate the relative influence of genetic and environmental factors on stress, urge, and mixed incontinence among elderly and middleaged women. Methods. This is a population-based classical twin study of 1168 female twin pairs [548 monozygotic (MZ) and 620 dizygotic (DZ)] from a middle-aged (46-68 years) and an old (70-94 years) cohort identified in the Danish Twin Registry. Urinary incontinence was assessed with the help of two validated questions identifying stress and urge incontinence in interviews.Results. For urge incontinence, the tetrachoric correlation was significantly higher for MZ twins, compared to that for DZ twin pairs in both middle-aged [0.51 (95% CI: 0.26-0.71) versus À0.22 (95% CI: À0.59-0.18)] and elderly [0.50 (95% CI: 0.27-0.68) versus 0.28 (95% CI: 0.02-0.42)], indicating genetic effects. The heritability of urge incontinence was 42% (95% CI: 16-63%) among middle-aged women and 49% (95% CI: 29-65%) among the elderly. Moreover, mixed incontinence had a substantial genetic component. The role of genetic factors was less clear in stress incontinence. Conclusions. Genetic factors play a substantial role in the development of urge and mixed incontinence, whereas the role of genetic factors in stress incontinence is less prominent.

Background Although general recommendations for diagnostic disclosure of dementia are available, little is known about how these recommendations are implemented. The aim of the current study was to investigate the process and content of dementia diagnostic disclosure meetings, and to compare key aspects of disclosing a diagnosis of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Method A total of 54 specialist physicians in Danish dementia diagnostic departments completed an online survey on their practices regarding diagnostic disclosure of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. The influence of respondent characteristics was assessed, and differences on key aspects of disclosing a diagnosis of dementia and mild cognitive impairment were analyzed. Results The results suggest that among Danish specialist physicians, there is a general consensus regarding the organization of diagnostic disclosure meetings. However, differences in employed terminology and information provided when disclosing a dementia diagnosis were evident. Significant differences were present on key aspects of the diagnostic disclosure of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. For instance, 91% would use the term dementia during diagnostic disclosures compared to just 72% for mild cognitive impairment. Conclusion The range of practices reflected in the present study confirms the complexity of diagnostic disclosure and highlights the importance of preparation and follow-up strategies to tailor the disclosure process to the needs of individual patients with dementia and their caregivers. Due to earlier diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders, more research is urgently needed on this aspect of the diagnostic process, especially to develop evidence-based models for the disclosure of mild cognitive impairment.