Vol 91, No 1 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-01-31

open access

Page views 1547
Article views/downloads 1099
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Principal component analysis and internal reliability of the Polish version of MESA and UDI-6 questionnaires

Pawel Kieres1, Jakub Mlodawski23, Marta Mlodawska45, Marcin Misiek6, Tomasz Rechberger7, Wojciech Rokita2
Pubmed: 32039462
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(1):13-16.

Abstract

Objectives: Urinary incontinence (UI) can affect up to 50% of the population of women over the age of 50. In order to objectively assess discomfort in women with UI prior to initiating treatment and monitoring the outcomes of the treatment, validated questionnaires need to be used to examine the impact of UI on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). The Urogenital Distress Inventory — Short Form (UDI-6) and the Medical Epidemiologic and Social Aspects of Ageing (MESA) questionnaires are used typically. Assessment of the Polish translation of the MESA and UDI-6 questionnaires. Material and methods: 155 patients with symptoms of UI were enrolled. Each of the patients completed the MESA and UDI questionnaires prior to being examined. The final diagnosis was made after diagnostic tests were carried out in the patients. Results: Principle component analysis showed division of the Polish versions of the questionnaires into domains identical to the original version. Analyses of internal consistency reliability revealed high internal consistency for the MESA questionnaire (0.90) and a low reliability of the UDI-6 questionnaire (0.44). Conclusions: The Polish version of the MESA questionnaire was demonstrated to be a clinically useful diagnostic tool in the studied population, UDI-6 did not reached a sufficiently high reliability in the study group to be recommended as a diagnostic tool.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Minassian VA, Yan X, Lichtenfeld MJ, et al. The iceberg of health care utilization in women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23(8): 1087.
  2. Coyne KS, Sexton CC, Irwin DE, et al. 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. 2008; 101(11): 1388.
  3. Diokno AC, Brown MB, Brock BM, et al. Clinical and cystometric characteristics of continent and incontinent noninstitutionalized elderly. J Urol. 1988; 140(3): 557–567.
  4. Diokno AC, Catipay JRC, Steinert BW. Office assessment of patient outcome of pharmacologic therapy for urge incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002; 13(5): 334–338.
  5. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, et al. Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program for Women Research Group. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995; 14(2): 131–139.
  6. Nambiar A, Bosch R, Cruz F, et al. EAU Guidelines on Assessment and Nonsurgical Management of Urinary Incontinence. European Urology. 2018; 73(4): 596–609.
  7. Skorupska KA, Miotla P, Kubik-Komar A, et al. Development and validation of the Polish version of the Urogenital Distress Inventory short form and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire short form. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 215: 171–174.