Interview-based versus self-reported anal incontinence using St Mark’s incontinence score

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

St Mark’s incontinence score (SMIS) was originally designed and validated for use in an interview setting (iSMIS), and there is conflicting evidence for the validity of the self-administered SMIS (sSMIS). Our objective was to compare self-administered and interview-based reports of anal incontinence (AI) symptoms.

Methods

A total of 147 women reported symptoms of AI on a sSMIS before inclusion in a clinical study investigating the effect of conservative treatment for AI 1 year after delivery. After clinical investigations, an iSMIS was completed by one of two consultant surgeons blinded to the sSMIS results. The correlation and agreement among the individual items of the iSMIS and the sSMIS were assessed using Spearman’s rho and weighted kappa statistics, respectively.

Results

The mean iSMIS and sSMIS reported was 4.0 (SD: 3.6) and 4.3 (SD: 4.0), respectively. Spearman’s rho showed a strong relationship between the two total SMIS scores (r = 0.769, n = 147, p < 0.001), and explained variance was 59% (r2=0.591). Except for the individual item about gas incontinence, women reported more frequent AI symptoms on the sSMIS than on the iSMIS. The assessment of consistency among the individual items of the iSMIS and sSMIS showed substantial agreement (κ ≥ 0.60) for all items except for fair agreement for the item about formed stool incontinence (κ = 0.22), and moderate for the item about any change in lifestyle (κ = 0.5).

Conclusions

The level of consistency between the two methods of reporting anal incontinence symptoms suggests that the St Mark’s score may be used as both an interview-based and a self-administered incontinence score.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36(1):77–97.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77–80.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bols EM, Hendriks EJ, Deutekom M, Berghmans BC, Baeten CG, de Bie RA. Inconclusive psychometric properties of the Vaizey score in fecally incontinent patients: a prospective cohort study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(3):370–7. doi:10.1002/nau.20758.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bakx R, Sprangers MA, Oort FJ, van Tets WF, Bemelman WA, Slors JF, et al. Development and validation of a colorectal functional outcome questionnaire. Int J Color Dis. 2005;20(2):126–36. doi:10.1007/s00384-004-0638-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sansoni J, Hawthorne G, Fleming G, Marosszeky N. The revised faecal incontinence scale: a clinical validation of a new, short measure for assessment and outcomes evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(5):652–9. doi:10.1097/DCR.0b013e318279c2ac.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Laake P, Benestad HB, Olsen BR. Research methodology in the medical and biological sciences. London: Elsevier; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Maeda Y, Pares D, Norton C, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA. Does the St. Mark’s incontinence score reflect patients’ perceptions? A review of 390 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(4):436–42. doi:10.1007/s10350-007-9157-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Roos AM, Sultan AH, Thakar R. St. Mark’s incontinence score for assessment of anal incontinence following obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(4):407–10. doi:10.1007/s00192-008-0784-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Johannessen HH, Wibe A, Stordahl A, Sandvik L, Morkved S. Do pelvic floor muscle exercises reduce postpartum anal incontinence? A randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2017;124(4):686–94. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14145.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Boreham MK, Richter HE, Kenton KS, Nager CW, Gregory WT, Aronson MP, et al. Anal incontinence in women presenting for gynecologic care: prevalence, risk factors, and impact upon quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1637–42. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ogata H, Mimura T, Hanazaki K. Validation study of the Japanese version of the faecal incontinence quality of life scale. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(2):194–9. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02558.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Johannessen HH, Morkved S, Stordahl A, Sandvik L, Wibe A. Anal incontinence and quality of life in late pregnancy: a cross-sectional study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(8):978–87.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Guise JM, Morris C, Osterweil P, Li H, Rosenberg D, Greenlick M. Incidence of fecal incontinence after childbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(2 Pt 1):281–8. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000254164.67182.78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Eva UF, Gun W, Preben K. Prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence and symptoms of genital prolapse in women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(3):280–6. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00103.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bols EM, Hendriks HJ, Berghmans LC, Baeten CG, de Bie RA. Responsiveness and interpretability of incontinence severity scores and FIQL in patients with fecal incontinence: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):469–78. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1886-9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Maeda Y, Vaizey CJ, Hollington P, Stern J, Kamm MA. Physiological, psychological and behavioural characteristics of men and women with faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(9):927–32. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01717.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Tjandra JJ, Chan MK, Kwok SY, Yeh CH, Tan JJ, Sloane K, et al. Predictive factors for faecal incontinence after third or fourth degree obstetric tears: a clinico-physiologic study. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(7):681–8. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01467.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Clara Karoliussen for assembling the cohort, collecting background data, and contributing to the clinical investigations at St Olavs Hospital; Negin Sadati for collecting background data; and Leiv Sandvik for invaluable statistical advice throughout the study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hege Hølmo Johannessen.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Funding

This study was funded by the Norwegian Women’s Public Health Association/the Norwegian Extra Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation through EXTRA funds, Østfold Hospital Trust, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and the Central Norway Regional Health Authority.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johannessen, H.H., Norderval, S., Stordahl, A. et al. Interview-based versus self-reported anal incontinence using St Mark’s incontinence score. Int Urogynecol J 29, 667–671 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3363-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Anal incontinence
  • Interview
  • Scoring
  • Self-reporting