Literature DB >> 12861142

Relationship between patient report and physician assessment of urinary incontinence severity.

Jennifer L Melville1, Elizabeth A Miller, Michael F Fialkow, Gretchen M Lentz, Jane L Miller, Dee E Fenner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between patient report and physician assessment of urinary incontinence severity and to compare these assessments to a validated severity instrument. STUDY
DESIGN: A sequential sample of 153 women with urinary incontinence was enrolled over 12 months. Patients completed a detailed health questionnaire that included a medical comorbidity scale, 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12) the incontinence quality of life instrument, the PRIME-MD patient health questionnaire, and a patient incontinence severity assessment. The patient incontinence severity assessment is a single question that asks the patient to rate the severity of her incontinence symptoms on a 5-point Likert scale (range: 1 [mild] to 5 [severe]). After the physicians completed a detailed history, a physical examination, and a review of a 3-day voiding diary, they assigned a physician incontinence severity assessment score. The physician incontinence severity assessment is a physician rating of the severity of the patient's incontinence on a 5-point Likert scale (range: 1 [mild] to 5 [severe]). A validated severity index was computed and used for comparison. This is a multiplicative index that is based on frequency (4 levels) and amount of leakage (2 levels), which yields an index value of 1 to 8. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for patient incontinence severity assessment, the physician incontinence severity assessment scores, and the severity index values. Chi-square tests were used to determine differences between patient incontinence severity assessment and physician incontinence severity assessment ratings.
RESULTS: Spearman correlation coefficients for patient incontinence severity assessment and physician incontinence severity assessment were 0.62 (P <.001), for patient incontinence severity assessment and the severity index was 0.61 (P <.001), and for physician incontinence severity assessment and the severity index was 0.66 (P <.001). Agreement between patient assessment and physician assessment for different severity levels on the patient incontinence severity assessment and physician incontinence severity assessment are provided.
CONCLUSION: There is a high correlation between patient report and physician assessment of urinary incontinence severity. Both patient reports (patient incontinence severity assessment) and physician assessments (physician incontinence severity assessment) correlate well with a validated severity index. The agreement between patient and physician ratings is very high for mild incontinence but decreases as incontinence severity progresses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12861142     DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  13 in total

Review 1.  What's a 'cure'? Patient-centred outcomes of treatments for stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  R M Freeman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2006-09-12

2.  Estrogen for overactive bladder and patient perception of incontinence.

Authors:  Christopher Chermansky; Michael B Chancellor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2004

3.  Patient satisfaction with stress incontinence surgery.

Authors:  Kathryn L Burgio; Linda Brubaker; Holly E Richter; Clifford Y Wai; Heather J Litman; Diane Borello France; Shawn A Menefee; Larry T Sirls; Stephen R Kraus; Harry W Johnson; Sharon L Tennstedt
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.696

4.  Comparison of physician and patient assessments of incontinence severity and improvement.

Authors:  Ilker Yalcin; Lars Viktrup
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-02-28

5.  Predictive value of prolapse symptoms: a large database study.

Authors:  Jasmine S Tan; Emily S Lukacz; Shawn A Menefee; Curt R Powell; Charles W Nager
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2004-10-23

6.  Clinical and pathophysiological correlates of the symptom severity of stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Jenn-Ming Yang; Shwu-Huey Yang; Shu-Yu Yang; Evelyn Yang; Wen-Chen Huang; Chii-Ruey Tzeng
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-02-05       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Validity of the incontinence severity index: comparison with pad-weighing tests.

Authors:  Hogne Sandvik; Montserrat Espuna; Steinar Hunskaar
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2006-03-18

8.  Discrepancies between physician interview and a patient self-assessment questionnaire after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  T A de Boer; D A Gietelink; M E Vierhout
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-05-29

9.  A qualitative inquiry of patient-reported outcomes: the case of lower urinary tract symptoms.

Authors:  Lisa C Welch; Elizabeth M Botelho; Jean Journel Joseph; Sharon L Tennstedt
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Is there a difference in patient and physician quality of life evaluation in pelvic organ prolapse?

Authors:  Sushma Srikrishna; Dudley Robinson; Linda Cardozo; Juan Gonzalez
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-10-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.