Seung-June Oh1, Ja Hyeon Ku. 1. Department of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 28 Yongondong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a generic health outcome instrument would be helpful for evaluating women with stress urinary incontinence (UI) combined with or without urge UI. METHODS: A total of 109 women with UI and 80 controls participated in the study. Health-related quality of life (QOL) was measured using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) and the Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QoL) questionnaire. RESULTS: Among eight domains of the SF-36 questionnaire, only four domains, namely, 'role-physical functioning' (p<0.05), 'vitality' (p<0.05), 'mental health' (p<0.05) and 'bodily pain' (p<0.05) were significantly different between the groups. Comparing the I-QoL sores in the two groups, patients with UI had significantly poorer subscale scores of I-QoL than the controls (p<0.05 for all domains). When women with UI were subdivided into groups of stress and mixed UI, only 2 domains of the SF-36 questionnaire, 'role-physical functioning' (p<0.05) and 'bodily pain' (p<0.05), were significantly different. The mixed UI group had higher scores only on these two domains compared to the stress UI group. In the 'role-physical functioning' domain, there was no significant difference between the mixed UI group and the controls. In 'bodily pain' domain, there was no significant difference between the stress UI group and the controls. The mixed group had the highest scores observed. Patients with mixed UI had significantly lower total scores compared to those with stress UI, including the subscale score of 'avoidance behavior' of the I-QoL. Among eight domains of the SF-36, only 'physical functioning' (r = 0.281, p<0.01) and 'social functioning' (r = 0.239, p<0.05) were weakly correlated with 'psychological impact' of the I-QoL. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that the generic QOL instrument is not sensitive measure of QOL in women with UI.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a generic health outcome instrument would be helpful for evaluating women with stress urinary incontinence (UI) combined with or without urge UI. METHODS: A total of 109 women with UI and 80 controls participated in the study. Health-related quality of life (QOL) was measured using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) and the Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QoL) questionnaire. RESULTS: Among eight domains of the SF-36 questionnaire, only four domains, namely, 'role-physical functioning' (p<0.05), 'vitality' (p<0.05), 'mental health' (p<0.05) and 'bodily pain' (p<0.05) were significantly different between the groups. Comparing the I-QoL sores in the two groups, patients with UI had significantly poorer subscale scores of I-QoL than the controls (p<0.05 for all domains). When women with UI were subdivided into groups of stress and mixed UI, only 2 domains of the SF-36 questionnaire, 'role-physical functioning' (p<0.05) and 'bodily pain' (p<0.05), were significantly different. The mixed UI group had higher scores only on these two domains compared to the stress UI group. In the 'role-physical functioning' domain, there was no significant difference between the mixed UI group and the controls. In 'bodily pain' domain, there was no significant difference between the stress UI group and the controls. The mixed group had the highest scores observed. Patients with mixed UI had significantly lower total scores compared to those with stress UI, including the subscale score of 'avoidance behavior' of the I-QoL. Among eight domains of the SF-36, only 'physical functioning' (r = 0.281, p<0.01) and 'social functioning' (r = 0.239, p<0.05) were weakly correlated with 'psychological impact' of the I-QoL. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that the generic QOL instrument is not sensitive measure of QOL in women with UI.
Authors: Vera Vandoninck; Michael R Van Balken; E Finazzi Agró; Filomena Petta; Carlo Caltagirone; John P F A Heesakkers; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; Frans M J Debruyne; Bart L H Bemelmans Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Urology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: T van der Molen; D S Postma; A J Schreurs; H E Bosveld; M R Sears; B Meyboom de Jong Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Eman A Elkadry; Kimberly S Kenton; Mary P FitzGerald; Susan Shott; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Nick Freemantle; Kristin Khalaf; Clara Loveman; Sanja Stanisic; Dmitry Gultyaev; Johanna Lister; Marcus Drake Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2015-10-19
Authors: Joon Chul Kim; Byung Soo Chung; Jong Bo Choi; Ji Youl Lee; Kyu-Sung Lee; Won Hee Park; Myung-Soo Choo Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2007-02-28
Authors: Anna C Frick; Alison J Huang; Stephen K Van den Eeden; Sharon K Knight; Jennifer M Creasman; Jennifer Yang; Arona I Ragins; David H Thom; Jeanette S Brown Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nacho Castejón; Kristin Khalaf; Quanhong Ni; Jesús Cuervo; Donald L Patrick Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Janka A Barentsen; Els Visser; Hedwig Hofstetter; Anna M Maris; Janny H Dekker; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 3.186