Current Urology Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 5, pp 375–380

Which questionnaires should be used in female urology practice?

  • Christopher E. Kelly
Article

Abstract

The evaluation and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders is an evolving sub-specialty in urology. Recent attention has been directed toward more rigorous evaluation of treatment efficacy and durability of female urologic procedures. Throughout the past few decades, questionnaires have emerged as important subjective instruments for evaluation. Today, practitioners must choose from a burgeoning amount of questionnaires. This staggering number of questionnaires has raised two important issues: which questionnaire should be used in a female urology practice and should more refined criteria be developed for evaluating questionnaires to make the decision easier?

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, et al.: Quality of life measurement: will we ever be satisfied? J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:19–23. This is an excellent paper that tackles the problem of questionnaire overload and tries to explain the multitude of complex issues surrounding QoL instrument development and validation.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Korman HJ, Sirls LT, Kirkemo AK: Success rate of modified Pereyra bladder neck suspension determined by outcomes analysis. J Urol 1994, 152:1453–1457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sirls LT, Keoleian CM, Korman HJ, et al.: The effect of study methodology on reported success rates of the modified pereyra bladder neck suspension. J Urol 1995, 154:1732–1735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, et al.: Pubovaginal slings using fascia lata for the treatment of intrinsic sphincter deficiency. J Urol 1997, 157:117–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill TM, Feinstein AR: A critical appraisal of the quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994, 272:619–626. An often-quoted well-researched article. This study gives the reader a perspective of the breadth of questionnaires that are in existence. The authors also make several recommendations on how to improve QoL measurements in future studies.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lemack G, Zimmern P: Predictability of urodynamic findings based on the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire. Urology 1999, 54:461–466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackson S, Donovan J, Brookes S, et al.: The Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms questionnaire: development and psychometric testing. Br J Urol 1996, 77:805–812.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Toozs-Hobson PM: Quality of life and urinary incontinence. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1995, 7:404–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt R, Carter W, et al.: The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981, 19:787–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP: Measuring health stats: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract 1985, 35:185–188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Derogatis LR: The psychosocial adjustment to illness scale (PAIS). J Psychosom Res 1986, 30:77–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al.: Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989, 262:907–913.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferrans C, Powers M: Psychometric assessment of quality of life index. Res Nurs Health 1992, 15:29–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, et al.: Validation of the United States’ version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, O’Leary MP, et al.: The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia: the Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol 1992, 148:1549–1557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scarpero HM, Fiske J, Nitti VW: The American Urological Association Symptom Index for lower urinary tract symptoms in women: correlation with degree of bother and impact on quality of life [Abstract]. J Urol 2002, 167:76.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, et al.: Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the urogenital distress inventory and the incontinence impact questionnaire. Quality Life Res 1994, 3:291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, et al.: Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Neurourol Urodyn 1995, 14:131–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Black N, Griffiths J, Pope C: Development of a symptom severity index and a symptom impact index for stress incontinence in women. Neurourol Urodyn 1996, 15:630–640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jackson S, Donovan J, Brookes S, et al.: The Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Questionnaires: development and psychometric testing. Br J Urol 1996, 7:805–812.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee PS, Reid DW, Saltmarche A, et al.: Measuring the psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence: the York Perceptions Scale (YIPS). J Am Geriatr Soc 1995, 43:1275–1278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Bavendam TG, et al.: Quality of life of persons with urinary incontinence: development of a new measure. Urology 1996, 47:67–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zorzos I, Paterson P: Quality of life after a Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz procedure for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 1996, 155:259–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seim A, Hermstad R, Hunskaar S: Management in general practice significantly reduced psychosocial consequences of female urinary incontinence. Qual Life Res 1997, 6:257–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raz S, Eriksen DR: SEAPI QMM incontinence classification system. Neurol Urodyn 1992, 11:187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar, et al.: A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997, 104:1374–1379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Field SM, Hilton P: The prevalence of sexual problems in women attending for urodynamic investigation. Int Urogynecol J 1993, 4:212–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hasse P, Skibsted L: Influence of operations for stress incontinence and/or genital descensus on sexual life. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1988, 67:659–661.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walters MD, Taylor S, Schoenfeld LS: Psychosexual study of women with detrusor instability. Obstet Gynecol 1990, 75:22–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weber AM, Walter MD: Sexual function and vaginal anatomy in women before and after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000, 182:1610–1615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lemack GE, Zimmern PE: Sexual function after vaginal surgery for stress incontinence: results of a mailed questionnaire. Urology 2000, 56:223–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    LoPiccolo J, Steger JC: The Sexual Interaction Inventory: a new instrument for assessment of sexual dysfunction. Arch Sex Behav 1974, 3:585–595.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N: The DSFI: a multidimensional measure of sexual functioning. J Sex Marital Ther 1979, 5:244–281.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Berman JR, Berman LA, Werbin TJ, et al.: Clinical evaluation of female sexual function: effects of age and estrogen status on subjective and physiologic sexual responses. Int J Impotence Res 1999, 11(suppl:1):S31-S38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Green MS, Naumann RW, Elliot M, et al.: Sexual dysfunction following vulvectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2000, 77:73–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Snell WE, Papini D: The Sexuality Scale (SS): an instrument to measure sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation. J Sex Res 1989, 26:256–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, et al.: The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 2000, 26:191–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thirlaway K, Fallowfield L, Cuzick J: The Sexual Activity Questionnaire: a measure of women’s sexual functioning. Qual Life Res 1996, 5:81–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Quirk FH, Heiman JH, Rosen RC, et al.: Development of a sexual function questionnaire for clinical trials of female sexual dysfunction. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002, 11:277–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rogers RG, Kammerer-Doak D, Villarreal A, et al.: A new instrument to measure sexual function in women with urinary incontinence or pelvic prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001, 184:552–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, et al.: Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001, 185:1388–1395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gonzalez-Argente FX, Jain A, Nogueras JJ, et al.: Prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence and pelvic genital prolapse in females with anal incontinence or rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2001, 44:920–926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD: Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993, 36:77–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Agachan F, Chen T, Pfeifer J: A constipation scoring system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1996, 39:681–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al.: Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index. Dis Colon Rectum 1999, 42:1525–1531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al.: Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality-of-life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2000, 43:9–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al.: Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: development, validation, and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg 1995, 82:216–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bug GJ, Kiff ES, Hosker G: A new condition-specific healthrelated quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with anal incontinence. BJOG 2001, 108:1057–1067.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Penson DF, Litwin MS: Quality of life assessment in urology. Contemp Urol 1997, 9:53–66.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ko DS, Fenster HN, Chambers K, et al.: The correlation of multichannel urodynamic pressure-flow studies and AUA symptom index in the evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 1995, 154:396–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barry MJ, Cocket AT, Holtgrewe HL, et al.: Relationship of symptoms of prostatism to commonly used physiological and anatomical measures of the severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 1993, 351–358.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wein AJ: What the urologist will need to know about urinary incontinence in the year 2000 and beyond. AUA News 1996, 1:12.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Patrick DL, Martin AM, Bushnell AM, et al.: Cultural adaptation of a quality-of-life measure for urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 1999, 36:427–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Testa MA, Simonson DC: Assessment of quality of life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996, 334:835–840.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fantl JA, Newman D, Colling J, et al. Urinary Incontinence in Adults: Acute and Chronic Management: Clinical Practice Guideline.Rockville, MD: US Dept of Health and Human Service; 1996:1–65.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Leach GE, Dmochowski RR, Appell RA, et al.: Female stress urinary incontinence clinical guidelines panel: summary report on the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 1997, 158:875–879. This is a well-researched article on the expected outcomes of stress urinary incontinence surgery. The cost of nonstandardization is high, which is evident by the panel’s decision to eliminate 40% of the selected articles because of a lack of standardized reporting in outcomes data.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Blaivas JG, Appell RA, Fantl JA, et al.: Standards of efficacy for evaluation of treatment outcomes in urinary incontinence: recommendations of the Urodynamics Society. Neurourol Urodynam 1997, 16:145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mattiasoon A, Djurhuus JC, Fonda D, et al.: Standardization of outcome studies in patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction: a report on general principles from the Standardization Committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 1998, 17:249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher E. Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations