Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 2189–2194 | Cite as

Measuring quality of life in patients with stress urinary incontinence: is the ICIQ-UI-SF adequate?

  • Zuzanna Kurzawa
  • Jason M. Sutherland
  • Trafford Crump
  • Guiping Liu
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) is a widely used four-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure. Evaluations of this instrument are limited, restraining user’s confidence in the instrument. This study conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the ICIQ-UI-SF on a sample of urological surgery patients in Canada.

Methods

One hundred and seventy-seven surgical patients with stress urinary incontinence completed the ICIQ-UI-SF pre-operatively. Methods drawing from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), measures of reliability, item response theory (IRT), and differential item functioning were applied. Ceiling effects were examined.

Results

Ceiling effects were identified. In the CFA, the factor loadings of items one and two differed significantly (p < 0.001) from item three indicating possible multidimensionality. The first two items reflect symptom severity not quality of life. Reliability was moderate as measured by Cronbach’s alpha (0.63) and McDonald’s coefficient (0.65). The IRT found the instrument does not discriminate between individuals with low incontinence-related quality of life.

Conclusions

Due to low/moderate reliability, the ICIQ-UI-SF can be used as a complement to other data or used to report aggregated surgical outcomes among surgical patients. If the primary objective is to measure quality of life, other PROs should be considered.

Keywords

Ceiling effects Confirmatory factor analysis ICIQ-UI-SF Item response theory Patient-reported outcomes Urinary incontinence 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and in-kind support of the Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) Authority.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Avery, K., Donovan, J., Peters, T. J., Shaw, C., Gotoh, M., & Abrams, P. (2004). ICIQ: A brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 23, 322–330.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwon, B. E., Kim, G. Y., Son, Y. J., Roh, Y. S., & You, M. A. (2010). Quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: A systematic literature review. International Neurourology Journal, 14, 133–138.  https://doi.org/10.5213/inj.2010.14.3.133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donovan, J., Badia, X., Corcos, M., Gotoh, M., Kelleher, C., Naughton, M., et al. (2003). Symptom and quality of life assessment. In L. Cardozo, S. Khoury, A. Wein (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Consultation on Incontinence Health (pp. 519–584). Plymouth: Health Publication Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hashim, H., Avery, K., Mourad, M. S., Chamssuddin, A., Ghoniem, G., & Abrams, P. (2006). The Arabic ICIQ-UI SF: An alternative language version of the English ICIQ-UI SF. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 25, 277–282.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pereira, S. B., Thiel, R. D. R. C., Riccetto, C., da Silva, J.M., Pereira, L. C., Herrmann, V., et al. (2010). Validation of the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire overactive bladder (ICIQ-OAB) for Portuguese. Revista Brasileira De Ginecologia E Obstetricia, 32, 273–278.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-72032010000600004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Espuña Pons, M., Montserrat Puig, C., Rebollo, P., Vanrell Díaz, J. A., & Iglesias Guiu, X. (2005). Evaluation of the results of surgery treatment for female stress urinary incontinence with the ICIQ-UI SF questionnaire. Medicina Clínica, 124, 772–774.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seckiner, I., Yesilli, C., Mungan, N. A., Aykanat, A., & Akduman, B. (2007). Correlations between the ICIQ-SF score and urodynamic findings. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 26, 492–494.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patki, P., Woodhouse, J. B., Patil, K., Hamid, R., & Shah, J. (2008). An effective day case treatment combination for refractory neuropathic mixed incontinence. International Brazilian Journal of Urology, 34, 63–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamilton, D. F., Giesinger, J. M., MacDonald, D. J., Simpson, A. H. R. W., Howie, C. R., & Giesinger, K. (2016). Responsiveness and ceiling effects of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 following total hip arthroplasty. Bone & Joint Research, 5, 87–91.  https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.53.2000480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tamanini, J. T. N., Dambros, M., D’Ancona, C. A. L., César, P. J. N., Palma, R., & Rodrigues, N. (2004). Validation of the “International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Short Form” (ICIQ-SF) for Portuguese. Revista de Saúde Pública.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102004000300015.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vincent, K., & Sutherland, J. M. .(2013). A review of methods for deriving an index for socioeconomic status in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim, C. R., Harris, K., Dawson, J., Beard, D. J., Fitzpatrick, R., & Price, A. J. (2015). Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: An analysis of the NHS PROMs data set. British Medical Journal Open, 5, e007765.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007765.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown, T. A. (2006).Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.  https://doi.org/10.1198/tas.2008.s98.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elkin, E. (2012). Are you in need of validation? Psychometric evaluation of questionnaires using SAS. In SAS Global Forum (pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 375–385.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169802200407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ostini, R., & Nering, M. L. (2006). Polytomous item response theory models. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, W.-H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265–289.  https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986022003265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baker F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd edn.). Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mielck, A., Vogelmann, M., & Leidl, R. (2014). Health-related quality of life and socioeconomic status: Inequalities among adults with a chronic disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 58.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tincello, D., Sculpher, M., Tunn, R., Quail, D., Van Der Vaart, H., Falconer, C., et al. (2010). Patient characteristics impacting health state index scores, measured by the EQ-5D of females with stress urinary incontinence symptoms. Value in Health, 13, 112–118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00599.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Magis, D., Béland, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & De Boeck, P. (2010). A general framework and an R package for the detection of dichotomous differential item functioning. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 847–862.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.847.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang, B. (2008). Application of unidimensional item response models to tests with items sensitive to secondary dimensions. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 147–166.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.2.147-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mallah, F., Montazeri, A., Ghanbari, Z., Tavoli, A., Haghollahi, F., & Aziminekoo, E. (2014). Effect of urinary incontinence on quality of life among Iranian women. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 8, 13–19.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hajjar, R. R. (2004). Psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence in the elderly population. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 20, 553–564.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2004.04.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chiaffarino, F., Parazzini, F., Lavezzari, M., & Giambanco, V. (2003). Impact of urinary incontinence and overactive bladder on quality of life. European Urology, 43, 535–538.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00097-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hajebrahimi, S., Corcos, J., & Lemieux, M. C. (2004). International consultation on incontinence questionnaire short form: Comparison of physician versus patient completion and immediate and delayed self-administration. Urology, 63, 1076–1078.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.01.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patrick, D., Martin, M., Bushnell, D., Yalcin, I., Wagner, T., & Buesching, D. (1999). Quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: Further development of the incontinence quality of life instrument (I-QOL). Urology, 53, 71–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00454-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, School of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations