Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Manonai J, Wattanayingcharoenchai R. Relationship between pelvic floor symptoms and POP-Q measurements. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(6):724–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17(1):101–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):197–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barber MD. Questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18(4):461–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kirkwood BR, Sterne JAC. Essential medical statistics. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science; 2006. p. 502.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953;32(4):260–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gynecology Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil

    Thais Villela Peterson, Edmund Chada Baracat & Jorge Milhem Haddad

  2. Colorectal Surgery Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil

    Rodrigo Ambar Pinto & Sérgio Carlos Nahas

  3. Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA

    G. Willy Davila

Authors
  1. Thais Villela Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodrigo Ambar Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Willy Davila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sérgio Carlos Nahas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Edmund Chada Baracat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jorge Milhem Haddad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thais Villela Peterson.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 208 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peterson, T.V., Pinto, R.A., Davila, G.W. et al. Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the pelvic floor bother questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J 30, 81–88 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3627-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3627-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation