This study aimed to describe the frequency of urinary leakage during sexual intercourse among women with urinary incontinence and to investigate associated sociodemographic and clinical factors.

This is a secondary analysis of data relating to a primary methodological study that included women over 18 years of age. Data were collected by an electronic survey comprising questions for sample characterization and the administration of two validated instruments. Urinary symptoms were assessed using the King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ), while sexual function and the impact of urinary symptoms on sexual life were evaluated using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Female Sexual Matters Associated with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Brazilian Portuguese version (FLUTSsex-Br). Eligibility criteria included reporting sexual intercourse within the previous four weeks and the presence of urinary incontinence, as determined by the KHQ. Coital urinary incontinence was assessed through the FLUTSsex-Br item “Do you lose urine during sexual intercourse?”. Descriptive analyses were conducted to estimate the frequency of coital urinary incontinence. Associations between coital urinary incontinence and sociodemographic variables (age, self-reported race/ethnicity, education level, occupational status, and marital status) as well as clinical variables (parity, history of gynecological surgery, physical activity, and menopausal status) were examined using Fisher’s exact test and the Mann–Whitney U test by Jamovi 2.7.

Results: A total of 329 women participated in the study (mean age 32.4 ± 10.7 years). The sample was composed mainly by white women (68.7%, n = 226) who had completed higher education (45.6%, n = 150), were formally employed(73.6%, n = 242) and reported to be single, divorced, or widowed (50.8%, n = 167).Regarding urinary incontinence type, 52.0% (n = 171) were classified as having mixed urinary incontinence, while 48.0% (n = 158) had urgency or stress urinary incontinence. Coital urinary incontinence was reported by 9.1% (n = 30). Among the variables analyzed, only partner status was significantly associated with coital urinary incontinence (p = 0.012). Women without a partner (single, divorced, or widowed) showed a higher prevalence of urinary leakage during sexual intercourse (13.2%) compared to those with a partner (married or in a stable relationship) (4.9%). Having a partner was associated with lower odds of coital urinary incontinence (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.15–0.79). No significant associations were observed between coital urinary incontinence and other sociodemographic or clinical variables.

The frequency of coital urinary incontinence observed in this study was lower than that reported in the literature among women with urinary incontinence. While systematic reviews and clinical studies indicate higher prevalence rates, our findings showed that only 9.1% of participants reported this symptom. These findings may be related to sample characteristics, the use of an electronic survey for recruitment, the method used to assess the outcome, and the self-reported nature of the data. Furthermore, the association observed with marital status suggests that relational and contextual factors may influence both the experience and symptom reporting. Women without a partner showed a higher frequency of urinary leakage during sexual intercourse. On the other hand, the lack of association with additional clinical and sociodemographic variables should be interpreted with caution, as the small number of women reporting coital urinary incontinence may have limited the statistical power to detect other associations.

Coital urinary incontinence was reported by a small proportion of women with urinary incontinence in this sample and was associated with marital status. These findings highlight the need for direct investigation of this symptom in clinical practice, as coital urinary incontinence remains underreported and may significantly impact women’s sexual health and quality of life. Future studies should further explore the contextual, relational, and clinical factors associated with its occurrence.

de Araujo Silva CM, Driusso P, Poli GG, Fabricio AMF, Venancio MG, Jorge CH, de Fátima Carreira Moreira Padovez R, Beleza ACS. The Brazilian Portuguese version of the ICIQ-FLUTSsex: cross-cultural adaptation and measurement property analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2023 Oct;34(10):2547-2555. doi: 10.1007/s00192-023-05563-9.
Brusaca, L.A., Rocha, A.P.R., Cardozo, L. et al. Brazilian version of the King’s Health Questionnaire: assessment of the structural validity and internal consistency in female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 33, 3143–3154 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05189-3
Karaçam Yilmaz ZD, Kaya HD, Günaydin S. Prevalence of Coital Incontinence in Women with Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2026 Jan;37(1):27-42. doi: 10.1007/s00192-025-06358-w. Epub 2025 Nov 11. PMID: 41217461.

Continence 19S (2026) 102535
DOI: 10.1016/j.cont.2026.102535