open access

Vol 91, No 7 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2020-07-31
Get Citation

Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation and reliability of assessment of pelvic floor disorders and their risk factors during pregnancy and postpartum questionnaire in Turkish population

Kazibe Koyuncu, Onder Sakin, Emine Eda Akalın, Munip Akalın, Ali Doğukan Anğın, Yasmin Aboalhasan, Emel Sönmezer
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2020.0072
·
Pubmed: 32779160
·
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(7):394-405.

open access

Vol 91, No 7 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2020-07-31

Abstract

Objectives: This study was conducted in order to produce translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of Assessment
of Pelvic Floor Disorders and Their Risk Factors During Pregnancy and Postpartum Questionnaire (APFDQ) to Turkish in
pregnant and postpartum population.
Material and methods: The study included 80 pregnant women. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach’s alpha.
Questionnaires were applied three different times in order to assess for sensitivity. Patients were asked to complete the
questionnaire first in the third trimester, secondly in postpartum 6th week and finally in postpartum 6th month after birth.
For translation process content, face/content validity, reliability, construct validity and reactivity studies were done. All
women had undergone pelvic examination and prolapse was assessed by using Pelvic organ Prolapse Quantification System
(POP-Q). Urinary symptoms were also evaluated with Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) questionnaire.
Results: The mean age of patients was 27.7 ± 5.5 years. Forty-one (51.25%) of the patients had vaginal delivery and
39 (48.75%) had a cesarean section. Above 96% of the patients had completed the questionnaires. POP-Q assessments and
UDI-6 results were used to evaluate construct validity. Cronbach’s alpha results were found to be 0.7 for all the subscales of
the questionnaire: bladder: 0.702, bowel: 0.744, prolapse: 0.701, sexual function: 0.706 respectively, indicating adequate
reliability. The test/retest reliability was studied and Pabak values showed moderate reliability in the bowel, prolapse and
sexuality, and good reliability for bladder subscale. The results of the patients were compared between pregnancy and
postpartum to assess reactivity and shown to be reactive to changes. Also risk factors of the patients were assessed including,
family predisposition, maternal age over 35 years, BMI > 25, nicotine use, subjective inability to contract pelvic floor
and sense of postpartum wound pain.
Conclusions: The Turkish version of APFDQ is a reliable and valid tool. It can be used for assessing the risk factors, incidence,
assessing degree of PFDs and evaluating the impact on quality of life in pregnant and postpartum women.

Abstract

Objectives: This study was conducted in order to produce translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of Assessment
of Pelvic Floor Disorders and Their Risk Factors During Pregnancy and Postpartum Questionnaire (APFDQ) to Turkish in
pregnant and postpartum population.
Material and methods: The study included 80 pregnant women. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach’s alpha.
Questionnaires were applied three different times in order to assess for sensitivity. Patients were asked to complete the
questionnaire first in the third trimester, secondly in postpartum 6th week and finally in postpartum 6th month after birth.
For translation process content, face/content validity, reliability, construct validity and reactivity studies were done. All
women had undergone pelvic examination and prolapse was assessed by using Pelvic organ Prolapse Quantification System
(POP-Q). Urinary symptoms were also evaluated with Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) questionnaire.
Results: The mean age of patients was 27.7 ± 5.5 years. Forty-one (51.25%) of the patients had vaginal delivery and
39 (48.75%) had a cesarean section. Above 96% of the patients had completed the questionnaires. POP-Q assessments and
UDI-6 results were used to evaluate construct validity. Cronbach’s alpha results were found to be 0.7 for all the subscales of
the questionnaire: bladder: 0.702, bowel: 0.744, prolapse: 0.701, sexual function: 0.706 respectively, indicating adequate
reliability. The test/retest reliability was studied and Pabak values showed moderate reliability in the bowel, prolapse and
sexuality, and good reliability for bladder subscale. The results of the patients were compared between pregnancy and
postpartum to assess reactivity and shown to be reactive to changes. Also risk factors of the patients were assessed including,
family predisposition, maternal age over 35 years, BMI > 25, nicotine use, subjective inability to contract pelvic floor
and sense of postpartum wound pain.
Conclusions: The Turkish version of APFDQ is a reliable and valid tool. It can be used for assessing the risk factors, incidence,
assessing degree of PFDs and evaluating the impact on quality of life in pregnant and postpartum women.

Get Citation

Keywords

pelvic floor dysfunction; pregnancy; postpartum; validation

About this article
Title

Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation and reliability of assessment of pelvic floor disorders and their risk factors during pregnancy and postpartum questionnaire in Turkish population

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 91, No 7 (2020)

Pages

394-405

Published online

2020-07-31

DOI

10.5603/GP.2020.0072

Pubmed

32779160

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2020;91(7):394-405.

Keywords

pelvic floor dysfunction
pregnancy
postpartum
validation

Authors

Kazibe Koyuncu
Onder Sakin
Emine Eda Akalın
Munip Akalın
Ali Doğukan Anğın
Yasmin Aboalhasan
Emel Sönmezer

References (29)
  1. Haylen B, Maher C, Barber M, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27(2): 165–194.
  2. Hallock JL, Handa VL. The Epidemiology of Pelvic Floor Disorders and Childbirth: An Update. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2016; 43(1): 1–13.
  3. Swift SE. The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 183(2): 277–285.
  4. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women's Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186(6): 1160–1166.
  5. Iglesia CB, Smithling KR. Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Am Fam Physician. 2017; 96(3): 179–185.
  6. Woodley SJ, Lawrenson P, Boyle R, et al. Pelvic floor muscle training for prevention and treatment of urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 10(3): CD007471–276.
  7. Tennstedt SL, Fitzgerald MP, Nager CW, et al. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network. Quality of life in women with stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007; 18(5): 543–549.
  8. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, et al. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116(5): 1096–1100.
  9. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(24): 3186–3191.
  10. Baessler K, Kempkensteffen C. [Validation of a comprehensive pelvic floor questionnaire for the hospital, private practice and research]. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 2009; 49(4): 299–307.
  11. Baessler K, O'Neill SM, Maher CF, et al. Australian pelvic floor questionnaire: a validated interviewer-administered pelvic floor questionnaire for routine clinic and research. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009; 20(2): 149–158.
  12. Metz M, Junginger B, Henrich W, et al. Development and Validation of a Questionnaire for the Assessment of Pelvic Floor Disorders and Their Risk Factors During Pregnancy and Post Partum. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde. 2017; 77(04): 358–365.
  13. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19(4): 539–549.
  14. Zuchelo LS, Bezerra IP, Silva AM, et al. Questionnaires to evaluate pelvic floor dysfunction in the postpartum period: a systematic review. International Journal of Women's Health. 2018; Volume 10: 409–424.
  15. Kaplan PB, Sut N, Sut HK. Validation, cultural adaptation and responsiveness of two pelvic-floor-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7, in a Turkish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012; 162(2): 229–233.
  16. Zuchelo LT, Bezerra IM, Da Silva AT, et al. Questionnaires to evaluate pelvic floor dysfunction in the postpartum period: a systematic review. Int J Womens Health. 2018; 10: 409–424.
  17. Hunskaar S, Lose G, Sykes D, et al. The prevalence of urinary incontinence in women in four European countries. BJU Int. 2004; 93(3): 324–330.
  18. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193(1): 103–113.
  19. Price N, Jackson SR, Avery K, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS. BJOG. 2006; 113(6): 700–712.
  20. Baessler K, O'Neill SM, Maher CF, et al. A validated self-administered female pelvic floor questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21(2): 163–172.
  21. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, et al. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185(6): 1388–1395.
  22. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193(1): 103–113.
  23. Price N, Jackson SR, Avery K, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS. BJOG. 2006; 113(6): 700–712.
  24. Radley SC, Jones GL, Tanguy EA, et al. Computer interviewing in urogynaecology: concept, development and psychometric testing of an electronic pelvic floor assessment questionnaire in primary and secondary care. BJOG. 2006; 113(2): 231–238.
  25. Peterson TV, Karp DR, Aguilar VC, et al. Validation of a global pelvic floor symptom bother questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21(9): 1129–1135.
  26. da Silva AT, Menezes CL, de Sousa Santos EF, et al. Referral gynecological ambulatory clinic: principal diagnosis and distribution in health services. BMC Womens Health. 2018; 18(1): 8.
  27. Gagnon LH, Boucher J, Robert M. Impact of pelvic floor muscle training in the postpartum period. Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27(2): 255–260.
  28. Boyle R, Hay-Smith EJ, Cody JD, et al. Pelvic floor muscle training for prevention and treatment of urinary and fecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014; 33(3): 269–276.
  29. Woodley SJ, Boyle R, Cody JD, et al. Pelvic floor muscle training for prevention and treatment of urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 12: CD007471.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl