INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We studied a web-based version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). METHODS: A randomized crossover study in which subjects completed both a web-based and paper-based version of the PISQ-12, with a 2-week separation between the completion of the two versions. Demographic data and questionnaire preferences were also assessed. Group 1 completed the web version first, and group 2 completed the paper version first. RESULTS: We recruited 52 women and 50 (96.2%) completed the study. Demographic data were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in total PISQ-12 score (P = 0.41) and a high degree of correlation between versions (r = 0.88). Women preferred the web-based PISQ-12 (77.6%) over the paper-based version. CONCLUSION: The web-based version of the PISQ-12 is a reliable alternative to the standard paper-based version and was preferred by women in this study regardless of age, race, and education.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We studied a web-based version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). METHODS: A randomized crossover study in which subjects completed both a web-based and paper-based version of the PISQ-12, with a 2-week separation between the completion of the two versions. Demographic data and questionnaire preferences were also assessed. Group 1 completed the web version first, and group 2 completed the paper version first. RESULTS: We recruited 52 women and 50 (96.2%) completed the study. Demographic data were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in total PISQ-12 score (P = 0.41) and a high degree of correlation between versions (r = 0.88). Women preferred the web-based PISQ-12 (77.6%) over the paper-based version. CONCLUSION: The web-based version of the PISQ-12 is a reliable alternative to the standard paper-based version and was preferred by women in this study regardless of age, race, and education.
Authors: Jessica Clark Newman; Don C Des Jarlais; Charles F Turner; Jay Gribble; Phillip Cooley; Denise Paone Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Emily L Whitcomb; Guri Rortveit; Jeanette S Brown; Jennifer M Creasman; David H Thom; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Leslee L Subak Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Elizabeth J Geller; Elizabeth R Barbee; Jennifer M Wu; Mary J Loomis; Anthony G Visco Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J G Richter; A Becker; T Koch; M Nixdorf; R Willers; R Monser; B Schacher; R Alten; C Specker; M Schneider Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2008-07-22 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Selina Posthuma; J Marinus van der Ploeg; Britt A H van Etten-deBruijn; David P van der Ham Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 2.894