Research Article
No access
Published Online: 17 August 2022

Perinatal Incontinence Assessment Tools: A Psychometric Evaluation and Scoping Review

Publication: Journal of Women's Health
Volume 31, Issue Number 8

Abstract

Background: Approximately 40% of women report incontinence during pregnancy and postpartum (known as the perinatal period). Due to the lack of an established measurement standard, this scoping review aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of tools, which assess incontinence-related symptoms and quality of life (QOL) during this period.
Materials and Methods: Articles in English, which assessed psychometric properties of tools for perinatal incontinence-related symptoms or QOL, were included and evaluated by a 16-item checklist. Nine databases were searched from 2000 to 2020.
Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria, and five assessment tools were identified and included in this review. The modified Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (mPFQ), Leakage Index (LI), and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) demonstrated internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.60, >0.70, and mean inter-item correlations >0.39, respectively). The mPFQ demonstrated moderate test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.60). Construct validity of the ICIQ-UI SF was established by significant (p < 0.05) differences across age and obesity, whereas the mPFQ demonstrated significant (p < 0.001) discriminant validity in symptoms prepartum and postpartum. Convergent validity of telephone-administered Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) was established with the written version (p > 0.05, correlation coefficient >0.90). Responsiveness to change was described for the ICIQ-UI SF and mPFQ.
Conclusions: The mPFQ and ICIQ-UI SF demonstrated acceptable reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change, therefore suggesting good clinical utility. Since most studies included primiparous women, future research in heterogeneous samples of women with perinatal incontinence may be needed.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

1. Dinç A. Prevalence of urinary incontinence during pregnancy and associated risk factors. Low Urin Tract Symptoms 2017;10:303–307.
2. Dinç A, Oymak S, Çelik M. Examining prevalence of urinary incontinence and risk factors in women in third postpartum month. Int J Urol Nurs 2018;13:13–22.
3. Daly D, Clarke M, Begley C. Urinary incontinence in nulliparous women before and during pregnancy: Prevalence, incidence, type, and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J 2018;29:353–362.
4. Sangsawang B, Sangsawang N. Stress urinary incontinence in pregnant women: A review of prevalence, pathophysiology, and treatment. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:901–912.
5. Lin YH, Chang SD, Hsieh WC, et al. Persistent stress urinary incontinence during pregnancy and one year after delivery; its prevalence, risk factors and impact on quality of life in Taiwanese women: An observational cohort study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2018;57:340–345.
6. Hansen BB, Svare J, Viktrup L, Jørgensen T, Lose G. Urinary incontinence during pregnancy and 1 year after delivery in primiparous women compared with a control group of nulliparous women. Neurourol Urodyn 2012;31:475–480.
7. Yusoff DM, Awang S, Kueh YC. Urinary incontinence among pregnant women attending an antenatal clinic at a tertiary teaching hospital in North-East Malaysia. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2019;14:39–46.
8. Woodley SJ, Lawrenson P, Boyle R, et al. Pelvic floor muscle training for preventing and treating urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;5:CD007471.
9. Dinç A, Oymak S, Çelik M. Examining prevalence of urinary incontinence and risk factors in women in third postpartum month. Int J Urol Nurs 2019;13:13– 22.
10. Viktrup L, Lose G. Incidence and remission of lower urinary tract symptoms during 12 years after the first delivery: A cohort study. J Urol 2008;180:992–997.
11. Weatherall M. A review of the evidence of pelvic floor muscle training during pregnancy. Australian New Zealand Continence J 2015;21:60–62.
12. Kocaöz S, Eroğlu K, Sivaslıoğlu AA. Role of pelvic floor muscle exercises in the prevention of stress urinary incontinence during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013;75:34–40.
13. Panhale V, Mundra N. Relationship between frequency of performing pelvic floor muscle exercises and stress incontinence in antenatal and postnatal period. Indian J Physiother Occup Ther 2012;6:7–11.
14. Bardsley A. An overview of urinary incontinence. Br J Nurs 2016;25:S14–S21.
15. Davenport MH, Nagpal TS, Mottola MF, et al. Prenatal exercise (including but not limited to pelvic floor muscle training) and urinary incontinence during and following pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:1397–1404.
16. Radzimińska A, Strączyńska A, Weber-Rajek M, Styczyńska H, Strojek K, Piekorz Z. The impact of pelvic floor muscle training on the quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: A systematic literature review. Clin Interv Aging 2018;13:957–965.
17. Lim R, Liong ML, Leong WS, Yuen KH. Which outcome measures should be used in stress urinary incontinence trials? BJU Int 2018;121:805–810.
18. Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P. ICIQ: A brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23:322–330.
19. Margolis MK, Vats V, Coyne KS, Kelleher C. Establishing the content validity of the King's Health Questionnaire in men and women with overactive bladder in the US. The patient 2011;4:177–187.
20. Reese PR, Pleil AM, Okano GJ, Kelleher CJ. Multinational study of reliability and validity of the King's Health Questionnaire in patients with overactive bladder. Qual Life Res 2003;12:427–442.
21. Hagen S, Hanley J, Capewell A. Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the urogenital distress inventory and the incontinence impact questionnaire. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:534–539.
22. van der Vaart CH, de Leeuw JR, Roovers JP, Heintz AP. Measuring health-related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: The urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn 2003;22:97–104.
23. Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:98–101.
24. Zuchelo LTS, Bezerra IMP, Da Silva ATM, et al. Questionnaires to evaluate pelvic floor dysfunction in the postpartum period: A systematic review. Int J Womens Health 2018;10:409–424.
25. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869.
26. Portney L, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. Prentice Hall, FA DAVIS, 2019.
27. Metz M, Junginger B, Henrich W, Baeßler K. Development and validation of a questionnaire for the assessment of pelvic floor disorders and their risk factors during pregnancy and post partum. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017;77:358–365.
28. Slavin V, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Fenwick J. Perinatal incontinence: Psychometric evaluation of the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire—urinary incontinence short form and wexner scale. Neurourol Urodyn 2019;38:2209–2223.
29. Geller EJ, Barbee ER, Wu JM, Loomis MJ, Visco AG. Validation of telephone administration of 2 condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:632.e1–4.
30. Antonakos CL, Miller JM, Sampselle CM. Indices for studying urinary incontinence and levator ani function in primiparous women. J Clin Nurs 2003;12:554–561.
31. Hou Y, Hou D. Validation of the australian pelvic floor questionnaire in chinese pregnant and postpartum women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;245:102–106.
32. Hernández RRDV, Aznar CT, Aranda ER. Validación de la versión española de las formas cortas del Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) y del Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) en mujeres embarazadas. Gac Sanit 2011;25:379–384.
33. Hajebrahimi S, Nourizadeh D, Hamedani R, Pezeshki MZ. Validity and reliability of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form and its correlation with urodynamic findings. Urol J 2012;9:685–690.
34. Pregnancy and Childbirth Standard Set: Measuring Outcomes, 2021. ICHOM. Available at: https://www.ichom.org/portfolio/pregnancy-and-childbirth/ Accessed May 5, 2021.
35. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:1388–1395.
36. Barber MD, Chen Z, Lukacz E, et al. Further validation of the short form versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodyn 2011;30:541–546.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Women's Health
Journal of Women's Health
Volume 31Issue Number 8August 2022
Pages: 1208 - 1218
PubMed: 35230163

History

Published online: 17 August 2022
Published in print: August 2022
Published ahead of print: 25 February 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Topics

Authors

Affiliations

Emily Gard
Department of Physical Therapy, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, Utah, USA.
Alyssa Lyman
Department of Physical Therapy, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, Utah, USA.
Department of Physical Therapy, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, Utah, USA.

Notes

Address correspondence to: Hina Garg, PT, MS, PhD, NCS, CEEAA, Department of Physical Therapy, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, 122 East 1700 South Building 3, Provo 84606, UT, USA [email protected]

Authors' Contributions

H.G. conceived of the presented idea. E.G. conducted initial searches. H.G. and A.L. confirmed search results. E.G. conducted additional searches to ensure all tools were discovered. A.L. conducted alternate searches to compile psychometric properties of selected tools for the general population. All authors completed quality assessment checklists, participated in group discussions and evaluations, and contributed to the final article.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this article.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.

Society Access

If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Back to Top