International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 139–147 | Cite as

Cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish CONTILIFE: a quality of life questionnaire for urinary incontinence

  • Ceren OrhanEmail author
  • Serap Özgül
  • Emine Baran
  • Esra Üzelpasacı
  • Gülbala Nakip
  • Gamze Nalan Çinar
  • Mehmet Sinan Beksaç
  • Türkan Akbayrak
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of the present study was to adapt the CONTILIFE, a quality-of-life questionnaire, into Turkish and to reveal its psychometric properties in women suffering from stress urinary incontinence (SUI).


Ninety-eight patients with a symptom of SUI participated in the study and filled out the Turkish CONTILIFE. Cronbach’s alpha (α) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were evaluated for the internal consistency and test-retest reliability, respectively. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine the underlying structure. Criterion validity was analyzed using the correlation coefficients between the total and subscale scores of the CONTILIFE and King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ), the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (IIQ-7), and the Urinary Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6).


Internal consistency was found to be strong to very strong (Cronbach’s α: 0.90–0.96). Test-retest reliability was very strong (ICCs = 0.91–0.98, p < 0.001). Exploratory factor analysis revealed five significant factors, explained by 74% of the total variance. Total scores on the CONTILIFE were significantly correlated with the KHQ subscales (r = −0.43 − −0.81), IIQ-7 (r = −0.89), UDI-6 (r = −0.66), and ISI (r = −0.66); (p < 0.01).


The Turkish CONTILIFE is a valid and reliable tool to determine the influence of SUI on health-related quality of life in Turkish women.


Stress urinary incontinence Quality of life Questionnaires Validity Reliability 



Body mass index


Health-related quality of life


Intraclass correlation coefficient


Incontinence impact questionnaire


Incontinence severity index


King’s health questionnaire


Quality of life


Stress urinary incontinence


Urinary distress inventory


Urinary incontinence



The present study was financially supported by the Scientific Researches Department of Hacettepe University (project no. THD-2017-16308).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    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. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S, Norwegian EEICN-T. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. Epidemiology of incontinence in the county of Nord-Trondelag. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(11):1150–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Milsom I. The prevalence of urinary incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(12):1056–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akkus Y, Pinar G. Evaluation of the prevalence, type, severity, and risk factors of urinary incontinence and its impact on quality of life among women in Turkey. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(6):887–93. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coyne KS, Zhou Z, Thompson C, Versi E. The impact on health-related quality of life of stress urge and mixed urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2003;92(7):731–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lagro-Janssen TL, Smits AJ, Van Weel C. Women with urinary incontinence: self-perceived worries and general practitioners’ knowledge of problem. Br J Gen Pract. 1990;40(337):331–4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghoniem G, Stanford E, Kenton K, Achtari C, Goldberg R, Mascarenhas T, et al. Evaluation and outcome measures in the treatment of female urinary stress incontinence: International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) guidelines for research and clinical practice. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(1):5–33. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patrick DL, Martin ML, Bushnell DM, Marquis P, Andrejasich CM, Buesching DP. Cultural adaptation of a quality-of-life measure for urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 1999;36(5):427–35. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oh SJ, Ku JH. Is a generic quality of life instrument helpful for evaluating women with urinary incontinence? Qual Life Res. 2006;15(3):493–501. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amarenco G, Arnould B, Carita P, Haab F, Labat JJ, Richard F. European psychometric validation of the CONTILIFE: a quality of life questionnaire for urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2003;43(4):391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gotoh M. Quality of life assessment for patients with urinary incontinence. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2007;69(3–4):123–31.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Spiegelhalter D, Cox D. Quality of life measures in health care. I: applications and issues in assessment. BMJ. 1992;305(6861):1074–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaya S, Akbayrak T, Toprak Celenay S, Dolgun A, Ekici G, Beksac S. Reliability and validity of the Turkish King’s health questionnaire in women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(12):1853–9. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rogowski A, Bienkowski P, Samochowiec J, Mierzejewski P, Jerzak M, Baranowski W. Reliability and clinical validity of a polish version of the CONTILIFE: a quality of life questionnaire for urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(6):731–6. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ozengin N, Kaya S, Orhan C, Bakar Y, Duran B, Ankarali H, et al. Turkish adaptation of the pelvic organ prolapse symptom score and its validity and reliability. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1217–22. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brubaker L, Lukacz ES, Burgio K, Zimmern P, Norton P, Leng W, et al. Mixed incontinence: comparing definitions in non-surgical patients. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(1):47–51. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandvik H, Hunskaar S, Seim A, Hermstad R, Vanvik A, Bratt H. Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993;47(6):497–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sandvik H, Seim A, Vanvik A, Hunskaar S. A severity index for epidemiological surveys of female urinary incontinence: comparison with 48-hour pad-weighing tests. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000;19(2):137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Sullivan R, Karantanis E, Stevermuer TL, Allen W, Moore KH. Definition of mild, moderate and severe incontinence on the 24-hour pad test. BJOG. 2004;111(8):859–62. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Girod I, McCarthy C, Marrel A, De La Loge C, Marquis P (1999) Development and psychometric validation of a quality of life questionnaire in urinary incontinence. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of ISOQOL, Barcelona, Spain, 3–6 November 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(12):1374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cam C, Sakalli M, Ay P, Cam M, Karateke A. Validation of the short forms of the incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ-7) and the urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6) in a Turkish population. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(1):129–33. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Minassian VA, Drutz HP, Al-Badr A. Urinary incontinence as a worldwide problem. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;82(3):327–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gasquet I, Tcherny-Lessenot S, Gaudebout P, Bosio Le Goux B, Klein P, Haab F. Influence of the severity of stress urinary incontinence on quality of life, health care seeking, and treatment: a national cross-sectional survey. Eur Urol. 2006;50(4):818–25. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Phe V, Zimmern P, Chartier-Kastler E. Outcome measures for stress urinary incontinence treatment: can we minimally agree? World J Urol. 2015;33(9):1221–34. Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Vaart CH, de Leeuw JR, Roovers JP, Heintz AP. Measuring health-related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: the urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22(2):97–104. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saadoun K, Ringa V, Fritel X, Varnoux N, Zins M, Breart G. Negative impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life, a cross-sectional study among women aged 49-61 years enrolled in the GAZEL cohort. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006;25(7):696–702. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gjersing L, Caplehorn JR, Clausen T. Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:13. Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physiotherapy and RehabilitationFaculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFaculty of Medicine, Hacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations