Quality of Life Research

, Volume 3, Issue 5, pp 291–306 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory

  • S. A. Shumaker
  • J. F. Wyman
  • J. S. Uebersax
  • D. McClish
  • J. A. Fantl
  • the Continence Program in Women (CPW) Research Group
Research Papers

Abstract

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a relatively common condition in middle-aged and older women. Traditional measures of symptoms do not adequately capture the impact that UI has on individuals' lives. Further, severe morbidity and mortality are not associated with this condition. Rather, Ul's impact is primarily on the health status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of women. Generic measures of HRQOL inadequately address the impact of the condition on the day-to-day lives of women with UI. The current paper presents data on two new condition-specific instruments designed to assess the HRQOL of UI in women: the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) and the Incontinence Impact Questionaire (IIQ). Used in conjunction with one another, these two measures provide detailed information on how UI affects the lives of women. The measures provide data on the more traditional view of HRQOL by assessing the impact of UI on various activities, roles and emotional states (IIQ), as well as data on the less traditional but critical issue of the degree to which symptoms associated with UI are troubling to women (UDI). Data on the reliability, validity and sensitivity to change of these measures demonstrate that they are psychometrically strong. Further, they have been developed for simple, self-administration.

Key words

Health-related quality of life quality of life urinary incontinence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Herzog AR, Fultz NH. Prevalence and incidence of urinary incontinence in community-dwelling populations. J Am Geriatrics Soc 1990; 34: 273–81.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wyman JF, Harkins SC, Choi SC, Taylor JR, Fantl JA. Psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence in women. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 378–81.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grimby A, Milsom I, Molander U, Wiklund I, Ekelund P. The influence of urinary incontinence on the quality of life of elderly women. Age and Ageing 1993; 22: 82–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hu T. Impact of urinary incontinence on health-care costs. J Am Geriatric Soc 1990; 34: 292–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashworth PD, Hagan MT. The meaning of incontinence: a qualitative study of non-geriatric urinary incontinence sufferers. J Advanced Nursing 1993; 18: 1415–23.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lagro-Janssen T, Smits A, Van-Weel C. Urinary incontinence in women and the effects on their lives. Scand Primary Care 1991; 19: 211–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ory M, Wyman J, Yu L. Psychosocial factors in urinary incontinence. Clin Geriatric Med 1986; 2: 657–72.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shumaker SA, Anderson R, Czajkowski S. Psychological tests and scales. In: B. Spilker ed. Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990: 95–114.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berzon R, Shumaker SA. Evaluating health-related quality of life measures for cross-national research. Drug Info 1994; 28: 63–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patrick DL, Deyo R. Generic and disease specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27: S217–32.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-being; the Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB. et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kind P, Carr-Hill R. The Nottingham Health profile: a useful tool for epidemiologists. Social Sci Med 1987; 25: 905–10.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunt SM, McKenna S. 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ware J, Sherbourne CD, Davies AR. Developing and testing the MOS 20-item short-form health survey: a general population application. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-being: the Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992: 277–90.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norton CA. The effects of urinary incontinence in women. Intl Rehabil Med 1982; 4: 9–13.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state—a practical method of grading cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wyman JF, Choi SC, Harkins SW, Wilson M, Fantl JA. The urinary diary in evaluation of incontinent women: a test-retest analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 812–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fantl JA, harkins SW, Wyman JF, Choi SC, Taylor JR. Fluid loss quantitation test in women with urinary incontinence: a test-retest analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 739–43.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    SAS Institute. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderberg MR. Cluster Analysis for Applications. New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uebersax JS. CLUSBAS Program for Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Statlib Internet Software Library, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. PRELIS User's Manual. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wright JG, Feinstein AR. A comparative contrast of clinometric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(11): 1201–18.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measures 1977; 1: 385–401.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Social Sci Med 1991; 32(6): 705–4.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF. EITS Manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego, CA: Educational Testing Services, 1971.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, McClish DK, Shumaker SA, Fantl JA. Short forms for the Incontinence Impact 299 Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Submitted.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Shumaker
    • 1
  • J. F. Wyman
    • 2
  • J. S. Uebersax
    • 1
  • D. McClish
    • 2
  • J. A. Fantl
    • 2
  • the Continence Program in Women (CPW) Research Group
  1. 1.Department of Public Health Sciences, The Bowman Gray School of MedicineWake Forest University Medical Center BoulevardWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.Continence Program for Women, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of VirginiaVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations