Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality assurance in quality of life assessment—measuring the validity of the King’s Health Questionnaire

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ) is a disease-specific, self-administered questionnaire designed to assess the impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life (QOL) in women. To our knowledge there are no data on women’s perception of completing the KHQ. Do they feel the KHQ to be useful and valuable or do they feel it to be too burdensome to be used in clinical practice? Therefore, we designed this study to evaluate patients’ perception of the KHQ using QQ-10. The QQ-10 is a validated tool designed to measure patient’s views on questionnaires.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary referral teaching hospital. Patients were recruited from a one-stop urodynamics clinic. The study participants were asked to complete QQ-10 to give their views regarding KHQ. This produces two responses: positive value (communication, relevance, ease of use, comprehensiveness, enjoyableness, willingness to repeat) and negative burden (over-long, embarrassing, complicated, and upsetting). Mean scores and standard deviation for positive and negative responses were calculated

Results

The KHQ was found to have a high mean value (73; range 13–100) and a low mean burden (25; range 0–81) regarding responses to individual QQ-10 items. This was reinforced by the positive comments provided in the text boxes.

Conclusions

Women perceived the KHQ as a valuable tool in their assessment without being bothersome.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Getliffe K, Dolman M (2007) Normal and abnormal bladder function. In: Getliffe K, Dolman M (eds) Promoting continence. A clinical and research resource, 2nd edn. Baillière Tindall, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Coyne KS, Sexton CC, Irwin DE, Kopp ZS, Kelleher CJ, Milson I (2008) The impact of overactive bladder, incontinence and other lower urinary tract symptoms on quality of life, work productivity, sexuality and emotional well-being in men and women: results from the EPIC study. BJU Int 101(11):1388–1395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Alison JC (2001) Are quality of life measures patient centred? BMJ 322:1357–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Salvatore S (1997) A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:1374–1379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kochakaran W, Pummangura N, Kijvikai K, Viseshsindh W, Sukying C (2005) Reliability of a Thai version of King's Health Questionnaire in Thai females with overactive bladder symptoms. J Med Assoc Thai 88(11):1526–1534

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tamanini JTN, D'Ancona CAL, Botega NJ, Rodrigues Netto N Jr (2003) Validação do "King's Health Questionnaire" para o português em mulheres com incontinência urinária. Rev Saude Publica 37(2):203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Uemura S, Homma Y (2004) Reliability and validity of King's Health Questionnaire in patients with symptoms of overactive bladder with urge incontinence in Japan. Neurourol Urodyn 23(2):94–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moores KL, Jones GL, Radley SC (2012) Development of an instrument to measure face validity, feasibility and utility of patient questionnaire use during health care: the QQ-10. Int J Qual Health Care 24(5):517–524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vella M, Mastoroudes H, Cardozo L, Srikrishna S, Karouze I, Vig M (2012) The bladder diary. Do women perceive it as a useful investigation? www.ics.org/abstract/publish/106/000353

  10. Linehan LA, O'Sullivan OE, Babiker E, Khashan A, O'Reilly B, O'Sullivan S (2012) EPAQ-PF versus Queensland—the Irish perspective. www.ics.org/Abstracts/Publish/106/000783

Download references

Conflicts of interest

Monika Vij: none; Sushma Srikrishna: Astellas for consultancy and travel, AMCO; Dudley Robinson: Speaker, Consultant and Research: Pfizer, Astellas, Ferring; Prof Linda Cardozo has during the last year received funding for research, lecturing and/or advice/consultancies from the following organizations: Astellas—member of the global advisory board for solifenacin, co-chairman of the European Overactive Bladder Forum, principle investigator for the SUNRISE study, Pfizer—member of the global advisory board for fesoterodine, participant in a multi-centre research study, research consultancy and/or advisory work for Allergan, American Medical Systems, Astellas, Pfizer and uroplasty.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urogynaecology, Kings College, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK

    M. Vij, S. Srikrishna, D. Robinson & L. Cardozo

Authors
  1. M. Vij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Srikrishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Cardozo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Vij.

Appendix

Appendix

QQ-10: Please circle the answers below each of the following 10 statements that best fit your feelings about the questionnaire that you recently completed. Please use the boxes at the bottom of the next page to make additional comments

  1. 1.

    The questionnaire helped me to communicate about my condition (strongly agree, mostly agree, neither agree nor disagree, mostly disagree, strongly disagree)

  2. 2.

    The questionnaire was relevant to my condition

  3. 3.

    The questionnaire was easy to complete

  4. 4.

    The questionnaire included all the aspects of my condition that I am concerned about

  5. 5.

    I enjoyed filling in the questionnaire

  6. 6.

    I would be happy to complete the questionnaire again in the future as part of my routine care

  7. 7.

    The questionnaire was too long

  8. 8.

    The questionnaire was too embarrassing

  9. 9.

    The questionnaire was too complicated

  10. 10.

    The questionnaire upset me

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vij, M., Srikrishna, S., Robinson, D. et al. Quality assurance in quality of life assessment—measuring the validity of the King’s Health Questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J 25, 1133–1135 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2370-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2370-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation