International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 126–136 | Cite as

Development and validation of a colorectal functional outcome questionnaire

  • Roel Bakx
  • Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
  • Frans J. Oort
  • Willem F. van Tets
  • Willem A. Bemelman
  • J. Frederik M. Slors
  • J. Jan B. van Lanschot
Original Article

Abstract

Background

After colorectal surgery, patients often experience impaired functional outcome. Faecal incontinence grading systems and self-assessment questionnaires are frequently used to assess these complaints. The available faecal incontinence grading systems have been validated, but have a limited focus, while more comprehensive questionnaires, which have been developed, have not been validated.

Aims

To investigate the reliability and validity of a newly developed, colorectal functional outcome (COREFO) questionnaire and of Dutch translations of the Hallböök questionnaire and an adapted version of the Vaizey questionnaire.

Patient/methods

Two hundred fifty-seven patients with and without impaired functional outcome after (colorectal) surgery received a booklet containing the three questionnaires in random order by mail. One hundred seventy-nine (70%) completed them, and 160 patients (90%) completed a retest within, on average, 18 days.

Results/findings

Reliability and validity were adequate for the COREFO and Hallböök questionnaire, with slight differences in the psychometric analyses in favour of the COREFO questionnaire. Significantly more patients found the COREFO questionnaire to reflect their problems best. The reliability of the Vaizey questionnaire was not sufficient.

Interpretation/conclusions

The newly developed COREFO questionnaire and the previously unvalidated Hallböök questionnaire are both suitable instruments to evaluate functional outcome after colorectal surgery. The psychometric analyses showed a slight difference in favour of the COREFO questionnaire and significantly more patients preferred the COREFO questionnaire to the other questionnaires. Therefore, we prefer to use the COREFO questionnaire in future research.

Keywords

Validation Questionnaire Functional outcome Colorectal surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Van Duijvendijk P, Slors JF, Taat CW, Oosterveld P, Vasen HF (1999) Functional outcome after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis compared with proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Surg 230:648–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Slors FJ, van Zuijlen PP, van Dijk GJ (2000) Sexual and bladder dysfunction after total mesorectal excision for benign diseases. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 232:48–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Duijvendijk P, Slors JF, Taat CW, Van Tets WF, Van Tienhoven G, Obertop H, Boeckxstaens GE (2002) Prospective evaluation of anorectal function after total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:2282–2289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johanson JF, Lafferty J (1996) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol 91:33–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirwan WO, Turnbull RB Jr, Fazio VW, Weakley FL (1978) Pullthrough operation with delayed anastomosis for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 65:695–698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pescatori M, Anastasio G, Bottini C, Mentasti A (1992) New grading and scoring for anal incontinence. Evaluation of 335 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 35:482–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hallböök O, Sjodahl R (2000) Surgical approaches to obtaining optimal bowel function. Semin Surg Oncol 18:249–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shibata D, Guillem JG, Lanoutte N, Paty P, Minsky B, Harrison L, Wong WD, Cohen A (2000) Functional and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with rectal cancer after combined modality therapy, intraoperative radiation therapy, and sphincter preservation. Dis Colon Rectum 43:752–758PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olagne E, Ballieux J, de la Roche R, Adham M, Berthoux N, Bourdeix O, Gerard JP, Ducerf C (2000) Functional results of delayed coloanal anastomosis after preoperative radiotherapy for lower third rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 191:643–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hida J, Yasutomi M, Fuijmoto K, Okuno K, Idea S, Machidera N, Kubo R, Shindo K, Koh K (1996) Functional outcome after low anterior resection with low anastomosis for rectal cancer using the colonic J-pouch. Prospective randomized study for determination of optimum pouch size. Dis Colon Rectum 39:986–991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fayers PM, Machin D (2000) Scores and measurements: validity, reliability, sensitivity. In: Quality of life; assessment, analysis and interpretation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 45–71Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallböök O, Pahlman L, Krog M, Wexner SD, Sjodahl R (1996) Randomized comparison of straight and colonic J pouch anastomosis after low anterior resection. Ann Surg 224:58–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reilly WT, Talley NJ, Pemberton JH, Zinsmeister AR (2000) Validation of a questionnaire to assess fecal incontinence and associated risk factors: fecal incontinence questionnaire. Dis Colon Rectum 43:146–153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fayers PM, Machin D (2000) Questionnaire development and scoring. In: Quality of life; assessment, analysis and interpretation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 135–153Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kerlinger FN (1973) Foundations of behavioral research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen J (1980) Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Machado M, Nygren J, Goldman S, Ljungqvist O (2003) Similar outcome after colonic pouch and side-to-end anastomosis in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 238:214–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heah SM, Seow-Choen F, Eu KW, Ho YH, Tang CL (2002) Prospective, randomized trial comparing sigmoid vs descending colonic J-pouch after total rectal excision. Dis Colon Rectum 45:322–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ho YH, Seow-Choen F, Tan M (2001) Colonic J-pouch function at six months versus straight coloanal anastomosis at two years: randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 25:876–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ho YH, Brown S, Heah SM, Tsang C, Seow-Cheon F, Eu KW, Tang CL (2002) Comparison of J-pouch and coloplasty pouch for low rectal cancers: a randomized, controlled trial investigating functional results and comparative anastomotic leak rates. Ann Surg 236:49–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dehni N, Tiret R, Singland JD, Cunningham C, Schlegel RD, Guiguet M, Parc R (1998) Long-term functional outcome after low anterior resection: comparison of low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 41:817–822PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joo JS, Latulippe JF, Alabaz O, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD (1998) Long-term functional evaluation of straight coloanal anastomosis and colonic J-pouch: is the functional superiority of colonic J-pouch sustained? Dis Colon Rectum 41:740–746PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim NK, Lim DJ, Yun SH, Sohn SK, Min JS (2001) Ultralow anterior resection and coloanal anastomosis for distal rectal cancer: functional and oncological results. Int J Colorectal Dis 16:234–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lazorthes F, Gamagami R, Chiotasso P, Istvan G, Muhammad S (1997) Prospective, randomized study comparing clinical results between small and large colonic J-pouch following coloanal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 40:1409–1413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oya M, Komatsu J, Takase Y, Nakamura T, Ishikawa H (2002) Comparison of defecatory function after colonic J-pouch anastomosis and straight anastomosis for stapled low anterior resection: results of a prospective randomized trial. Surg Today 32:104–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roel Bakx
    • 1
  • Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
    • 2
  • Frans J. Oort
    • 2
  • Willem F. van Tets
    • 3
  • Willem A. Bemelman
    • 1
  • J. Frederik M. Slors
    • 1
  • J. Jan B. van Lanschot
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical PsychologyAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgerySint Lucas/Andreas HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations