Skip to main content
Log in

Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a relatively common condition in middle-aged and older women. Traditional measures of symptoms do not adequately capture the impact that UI has on individuals' lives. Further, severe morbidity and mortality are not associated with this condition. Rather, Ul's impact is primarily on the health status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of women. Generic measures of HRQOL inadequately address the impact of the condition on the day-to-day lives of women with UI. The current paper presents data on two new condition-specific instruments designed to assess the HRQOL of UI in women: the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) and the Incontinence Impact Questionaire (IIQ). Used in conjunction with one another, these two measures provide detailed information on how UI affects the lives of women. The measures provide data on the more traditional view of HRQOL by assessing the impact of UI on various activities, roles and emotional states (IIQ), as well as data on the less traditional but critical issue of the degree to which symptoms associated with UI are troubling to women (UDI). Data on the reliability, validity and sensitivity to change of these measures demonstrate that they are psychometrically strong. Further, they have been developed for simple, self-administration.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Herzog AR, Fultz NH. Prevalence and incidence of urinary incontinence in community-dwelling populations. J Am Geriatrics Soc 1990; 34: 273–81.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wyman JF, Harkins SC, Choi SC, Taylor JR, Fantl JA. Psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence in women. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 378–81.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grimby A, Milsom I, Molander U, Wiklund I, Ekelund P. The influence of urinary incontinence on the quality of life of elderly women. Age and Ageing 1993; 22: 82–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hu T. Impact of urinary incontinence on health-care costs. J Am Geriatric Soc 1990; 34: 292–5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ashworth PD, Hagan MT. The meaning of incontinence: a qualitative study of non-geriatric urinary incontinence sufferers. J Advanced Nursing 1993; 18: 1415–23.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lagro-Janssen T, Smits A, Van-Weel C. Urinary incontinence in women and the effects on their lives. Scand Primary Care 1991; 19: 211–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ory M, Wyman J, Yu L. Psychosocial factors in urinary incontinence. Clin Geriatric Med 1986; 2: 657–72.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shumaker SA, Anderson R, Czajkowski S. Psychological tests and scales. In: B. Spilker ed. Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990: 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Berzon R, Shumaker SA. Evaluating health-related quality of life measures for cross-national research. Drug Info 1994; 28: 63–7.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Patrick DL, Deyo R. Generic and disease specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27: S217–32.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-being; the Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB. et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kind P, Carr-Hill R. The Nottingham Health profile: a useful tool for epidemiologists. Social Sci Med 1987; 25: 905–10.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hunt SM, McKenna S. 1994.

  15. Ware J, Sherbourne CD, Davies AR. Developing and testing the MOS 20-item short-form health survey: a general population application. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-being: the Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992: 277–90.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Norton CA. The effects of urinary incontinence in women. Intl Rehabil Med 1982; 4: 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state—a practical method of grading cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wyman JF, Choi SC, Harkins SW, Wilson M, Fantl JA. The urinary diary in evaluation of incontinent women: a test-retest analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 812–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fantl JA, harkins SW, Wyman JF, Choi SC, Taylor JR. Fluid loss quantitation test in women with urinary incontinence: a test-retest analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 739–43.

    Google Scholar 

  20. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Anderberg MR. Cluster Analysis for Applications. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Uebersax JS. CLUSBAS Program for Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Statlib Internet Software Library, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

  23. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. PRELIS User's Manual. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc., 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wright JG, Feinstein AR. A comparative contrast of clinometric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(11): 1201–18.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measures 1977; 1: 385–401.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Social Sci Med 1991; 32(6): 705–4.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF. EITS Manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego, CA: Educational Testing Services, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, McClish DK, Shumaker SA, Fantl JA. Short forms for the Incontinence Impact 299 Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Submitted.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Additional information

The Continence Program for Women (CPW) Research Group is comprised of: Richard C. Bump, MD (1990–1993), Denise P. Elser, MD, J. Andrew Fantl MD, Donna K. McClish, PhD, and Jean F. Wyman, PhD, Schools of Medicine and Nursing, Virginia Commonwealth University/Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA; Richard C. Bump MD (1993-present) and James P. Theofrastous, MD, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC; and Curt D. Furberg, MD, PhD, Samuel S. Lentz, MD, Timothy M. Morgan, PhD, Deirdre Robinson, MD, and Sally A. Shumaker, PhD, The Bowman Gray School of Medicine of the Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shumaker, S.A., Wyman, J.F., Uebersax, J.S. et al. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Qual Life Res 3, 291–306 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00451721

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00451721

Key words

Navigation