Objective: To describe loss to follow-up (LTFU) in a longitudinal community-based study on urogenital tract dysfunction in older men. Patients and Methods: A cohort study of men recruited from a Dutch municipality was performed. A baseline study and two follow-up rounds – all with questionnaires and additional measurements – were performed with, on average, 2.1-year intervals. Baseline characteristics were compared between participants and non-participants in the first and in the second follow-up study. Results: The response rates in the first and in the second follow-up were 78.0 and 80.0%, respectively. Various characteristics were found to be related to LTFU (i.e., more than 5% difference in response rate). Lower urinary tract symptoms were related to LTFU in the first and second follow-up. Sexual dysfunction was related to LTFU only in the second follow-up. Adjustment for confounders yielded odds ratios for the primary outcome variables (lower urinary tract symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and health status) that approximated the value of 1. LTFU according to these variables was different in men with and without other chronic illnesses. Conclusions: LTFU seems not to be related to the primary outcome variables in this study. Describing response patterns in longitudinal studies is important, especially in studies involving older participants, as often is the case in urological research.

Keywords:
Cohort studies, urogenital tract symptoms, Urological/male genital diseases, Older males, urogenital tract symptoms, Health status, Dutch older males
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel
2005
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.