International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 81–88 | Cite as

Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the pelvic floor bother questionnaire

  • Thais Villela PetersonEmail author
  • Rodrigo Ambar Pinto
  • G. Willy Davila
  • Sérgio Carlos Nahas
  • Edmund Chada Baracat
  • Jorge Milhem Haddad
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire (PFBQ) was designed to identify the presence and degree of bother associated with common pelvic floor symptoms. The PFBQ can be used in clinical practice and for research purposes, but it is not available in Brazilian Portuguese. We aimed to validate a cross-culturally adapted Brazilian Portuguese version of the PFBQ.


A pilot-tested version of the PFBQ translated from English was evaluated with Brazilian patients suffering from pelvic floor disorders. Internal reliability, test-retest reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change were assessed.


A total of 147 patients (mean age, 60.49 years) were enrolled in the study. The Brazilian Portuguese version of the PFBQ demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.625; ICC = 0.981). There was strong agreement beyond chance for each item (κ = 0.895–1.00). The PFBQ correlated with stage of prolapse (p < 0.01), number of urinary (ρ = 0.791, p < 0.001) and fecal (ρ = 0.78, p < 0.001) incontinence episodes, and obstructed defecation (ρ = 0.875, p < 0.001).


The Brazilian Portuguese version of the PFBQ is a reliable, valid, and user-friendly instrument that can be used for assessing the presence and severity of pelvic floor symptoms in clinical and research settings in Brazil.


Fecal incontinence Pelvic floor disorders Pelvic organ prolapse Symptom assessment Urinary incontinence Validation studies 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest


Supplementary material

192_2018_3627_MOESM1_ESM.docx (208 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 208 kb)


  1. 1.
    Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Kenton K, Meikle S, Schaffer J, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1388–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, Redden DT, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peterson TV, Karp DR, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Validation of a global pelvic floor symptom bother questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(9):1129–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bazi T, Kabakian-Khasholian T, Ezzeddine D, Ayoub H. Validation of an Arabic version of the global pelvic floor bother questionnaire. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;121(2):166–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doğan H, Özengin N, Bakar Y, Duran B. Reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the global pelvic floor bother questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(10):1577–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lipschuetz M, Cohen SM, Liebergall-Wischnitzer M, Zbedat K, Hochner-Celnikier D, Lavy Y, et al. Degree of bother from pelvic floor dysfunction in women one year after first delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;191:90–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manonai J, Wattanayingcharoenchai R. Relationship between pelvic floor symptoms and POP-Q measurements. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(6):724–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghandour L, Minassian V, Al-Badr A, Abou Ghaida R, Geagea S, Bazi T. Prevalence and degree of bother of pelvic floor disorder symptoms among women from primary care and specialty clinics in Lebanon: an exploratory study. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;28(1):105–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17(1):101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):197–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barber MD. Questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18(4):461–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirkwood BR, Sterne JAC. Essential medical statistics. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science; 2006. p. 502.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An international Urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stopa SR, Malta DC, Monteiro CN, Szwarcwald CL, Goldbaum M, Cesar CLG. Use of and access to health services in Brazil, 2013 National Health Survey. Rev Saude Publica. 2017;51(suppl 1):3s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953;32(4):260–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arouca MAF, Duarte TB, Lott DAM, Magnani PS, Nogueira AA, Rosa-e-Silva JC, et al. Validation and cultural translation for Brazilian Portuguese version of the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(7):1097–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tamanini JTN, Almeida FG, Girotti ME, Riccetto CLZ, Palma PCR, Rios LAS. The Portuguese validation of the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire-vaginal symptoms (ICIQ-VS) for Brazilian women with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(10):1385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thais Villela Peterson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rodrigo Ambar Pinto
    • 2
  • G. Willy Davila
    • 3
  • Sérgio Carlos Nahas
    • 2
  • Edmund Chada Baracat
    • 1
  • Jorge Milhem Haddad
    • 1
  1. 1.Gynecology DepartmentUniversity of São Paulo School of MedicineSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Colorectal Surgery DepartmentUniversity of São Paulo School of MedicineSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Cleveland Clinic FloridaWestonUSA

Personalised recommendations