Literature DB >> 12133054

Validity and reliability of an interviewer-administered questionnaire to measure the severity of lower urinary tract symptoms of storage abnormality: the Leicester Urinary Symptom Questionnaire.

C Shaw1, R J Matthews, S I Perry, R P Assassa, K Williams, C McGrother, H Dallosso, C Jagger, C Mayne, M Clarke.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a valid and reliable interviewer-administered questionnaire to measure the presence and severity of storage abnormality symptoms of incontinence, urgency, frequency and nocturia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were 930 men and women aged >/=40 years, taking part in a randomized controlled trial of a continence nurse practitioner (CNP) service. Criterion validity was tested by comparing questionnaire responses to 24-h pad test and 3-day urinary diary. Responsiveness was assessed by comparing questionnaire responses before and after treatment. Questions about urgency were investigated for construct validity in patients taking part in the trial who underwent urodynamic investigation (243). Test-retest and inter-rater reliability was measured at approximately 6 days in subjects recruited to an associated epidemiological study (104 and 102, respectively).
RESULTS: The questionnaire responses showed significant associations with pad-test and diary measures. Questions about the severity of daytime incontinence performed better than those measuring night-time incontinence. The response categories of soaked, wet, damp and almost dry had better associations with the pad test than other measures of the severity of incontinence. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability was good for all questions, and all were responsive to change in symptoms, showing significant differences before and after treatment.
CONCLUSION: There is a clear need for standardization of measurement using well-validated instruments. This interviewer-administered questionnaire is valid, reliable and sensitive to change in a wide range of severity of symptoms, and in both men and women aged >/=40 years. The questionnaire provides a useful assessment tool for primary and secondary care in research and clinical settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12133054     DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02893.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  7 in total

Review 1.  How urgent is urgency? A review of current methods of assessment.

Authors:  R M Freeman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2004-11-18

2.  Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new nurse-led continence service: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Kate S Williams; R Phil Assassa; Nicola J Cooper; David A Turner; Christine Shaw; Keith R Abrams; Christopher Mayne; Carol Jagger; Ruth Matthews; Michael Clarke; Catherine W McGrother
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Validated instruments in the evaluation and treatment outcomes of stress urinary incontinence in women.

Authors:  Gjanjé L Smith; Kathleen C Kobashi
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Long term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial of services for urinary symptoms.

Authors:  Kate S Williams; Dawn Coleby; Keith R Abrams; David A Turner; Christine Shaw; R Philip Assassa; Nicola J Cooper; Madeleine Mk Donaldson; Catherine W McGrother
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Study protocol: ICONS: identifying continence options after stroke: a randomised trial.

Authors:  Lois H Thomas; Caroline L Watkins; Beverley French; Christopher Sutton; Denise Forshaw; Francine Cheater; Brenda Roe; Michael J Leathley; Christopher Burton; Elaine McColl; Jo Booth
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Clinical safety-in-use study of a new tampon design.

Authors:  Stacey E Shehin; Michaelle B Jones; Anne E Hochwalt; Frank C Sarbaugh; Stephen Nunn
Journal:  Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003

7.  Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Authors:  Lois H Thomas; Caroline L Watkins; Christopher J Sutton; Denise Forshaw; Michael J Leathley; Beverley French; Christopher R Burton; Francine Cheater; Brenda Roe; David Britt; Joanne Booth; Elaine McColl
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 2.279

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.