Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 101–105 | Cite as

Validation of the Polish version of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory

  • Magdalena E. Grzybowska
  • James W. Griffith
  • Kimberly Kenton
  • Margaret Mueller
  • Justyna Piaskowska-Cala
  • Christina Lewicky-Gaupp
  • Dariusz Wydra
  • Katarzyna BochenskaEmail author
Original Article
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to develop a Polish language version of the short form of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and to validate it in a sample of Polish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDs).

Methods

The PFDI-20 was initially translated in a stepwise fashion as guided by the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) Translation Protocol. After initial forward translation from English to Polish, a community review process consisting of cognitive interviews and confirmation via back translation was performed. The final Polish version of the PFDI-20 was administered to Polish-speaking patients presenting with PFDs at university-based urogynecology clinics in Poland and the United States, along with a Polish version of the King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ). Internal consistency and criterion validity were assessed. Test–retest reliability was assessed in 100 patients after 2 weeks.

Results

A total of 254 women with PFDs enrolled in this multicenter study. Complete data from 44 Polish-speaking women in the United States and 200 women in Poland were analyzed. Participants had a mean age of 60.3 ± 11.2 years and mean body mass index (BMI) 27.6 ± 4.7. Internal consistency as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was good (0.89). Criterion validity was adequate between responses on the KHQ and PFDI-20 with Pearson correlations in particular domains (0.27–0.50, P < 0.05). Excellent test–retest reliability was demonstrated by intraclass correlation using a two-way mixed-effects model with absolute agreement (0.87).

Conclusions

The Polish version of the PFDI is a reliable tool for evaluating pelvic floor symptoms in Polish-speaking women with PFDs.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Urinary incontinence Pelvic floor disorders Quality of life 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest, except Dr. Kenton, who receives grant funding from Boston Scientific and is an expert witness for Ethicon.

Financial disclaimer

None.

Supplementary material

192_2018_3715_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (258 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 258 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lawrence JM, Lukacz ES, Nager CW, et al. Prevalence and co-occurrence of pelvic floor disorders in community-dwelling women. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(3):678–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kenton K, Mueller ER. The global burden of female pelvic floor disorders. BJU Int. 2006;98(Suppl 1):1–5. discussion 6-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milsom I, Abrams P, Cardozo L, Roberts RG, Thuroff J, Wein AJ. How widespread are the symptoms of an overactive bladder and how are they managed? A population-based prevalence study. BJU Int. 2001;87:760–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hampel C, Artibani W, Espuna Pons M, et al. Understanding the burden of stress urinary incontinence in Europe: a qualitative review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2004;46:15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walker GJ, Gunasekera P. Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(2):127–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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(6):1388–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Young AE, Fine PM, McCrery R, Wren PA, Richter HE, Brubaker L, et al. Spanish language translation of pelvic floor disorders instruments. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(10):1171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Omotosho TB, Hardart A, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI, Kobak WH, Romero AA. Validation of Spanish versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ): a multicenter validation randomized study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(6):623–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan SS, Cheung RY, Yiu AK, Li JC, Lai BP, Choy KW, et al. Chinese validation of pelvic floor distress inventory and pelvic floor impact questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(10):1305–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toprak Celenay S, Akbayrak T, Kaya S, Ekici G, Beksac S. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the pelvic floor distress inventory-20. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(8):1123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grigoriadis T, Athanasiou S, Giannoulis G, Mylona SC, Lourantou D, Antsaklis A. Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Greek short forms of two condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders: PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(12):2131–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoshida M, Murayama R, Ota E, Nakata M, Kozuma S, Homma Y. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):1039–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arouca MA, Duarte TB, Lott DA, Magnani PS, Nogueira AA, Rosa-E-Silva JC, Brito LG. Validation and cultural translation for Brazilian Portuguese version of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20). Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Jan 19.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Due U, Brostrøm S, Lose G. Validation of the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 and the pelvic floor impact questionnaire-7 in Danish women with pelvic organ prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(9):1041–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoo EH, Jeon MJ, Ahn KH, Bai SW. Translation and linguistic validation of Korean version of short form of pelvic floor distress inventory-20, pelvic floor impact questionnaire-7. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2013;56(5):330–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teleman P, Stenzelius K, Iorizzo L, Jakobsson U. Validation of the Swedish short forms of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(5):483–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(12):1374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bryant FB, Yarnold PR. Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, editors. Reading and understanding multivariate analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books; 1995. p. 99–136.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gorusch RL. Factor analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Machin D, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pinol A. Sample size tables for clinical studies. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1997.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):115–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coyne KS, Kvasz M, Ireland AM, et al. Urinary incontinence and its relationship to mental health and health-related quality of life in men and women in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;61(1):88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fitzgerald MP, Janz NK, Wren PA, et al. Prolapse severity, symptoms and impact on quality of life among women planning sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;98(1):24–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Handa VL, Zyczynski HM, Burgio KL, et al. The impact of fecal and urinary incontinence on quality of life 6 months after childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):636. e631–636 e636Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdalena E. Grzybowska
    • 1
  • James W. Griffith
    • 2
  • Kimberly Kenton
    • 3
  • Margaret Mueller
    • 3
  • Justyna Piaskowska-Cala
    • 1
  • Christina Lewicky-Gaupp
    • 3
  • Dariusz Wydra
    • 1
  • Katarzyna Bochenska
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology and Gynecologic EndocrinologyMedical University of GdańskGdańskPoland
  2. 2.Department of Medical Social SciencesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive SurgeryNorthwestern University, Prentice Women’s Hospital, Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations