Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 115–122 | Cite as

The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire

  • Kaven BaesslerEmail author
  • Alexandra Mowat
  • Christopher F. Maher
Original Article
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to establish the minimal important difference (MID) of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) in women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence or symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. A further aim was to estimate dysfunction scores dependent on the bothersomeness in a community cohort.

Methods

The APFQ was completed before and 6 weeks after pelvic floor surgery by 183 women (n = 80 suburethral tape insertion; n = 103 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy). Distribution and anchor-based methods were used to establish the effect size, standardised response mean and MID (calculated as the difference between women who stated no change or a little better in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I]).

In a community cohort of 470 women aged 42–80 years, the APFQ was analysed according to disclosed bothersomeness.

Results

For the suburethral tape group, the effect size in the bladder domain was 1.5 and the PGI-I-based MID 1.3. For the POP surgery, group the effect size in the prolapse domain was calculated at 2.2 and the PGI-I-based MID at 1.0. The domain scores for women who declared no bother were significantly different from those who were a little bothered (bladder domain 2.2 vs 4.0, bowel 0.6 vs 1.7, POP 0.1 vs 3.2, sex 1.8 vs 3.0) with wide variations.

Conclusions

The MID of the APFQ ranged from 1.0 to 1.3 in the domains after POP or continence surgery respectively. This is corroborated by the differences in domain scores from community-based women who were bothered versus not bothered by pelvic floor symptoms.

Keywords

Minimal important difference Pelvic floor questionnaire Pelvic floor dysfunction Pelvic floor surgery 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Baessler K, O’Neill SM, Maher CF, Battistutta D. 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):149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baessler K, O’Neill SM, Maher CF, Battistutta D. A validated self-administered female pelvic floor questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):163–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0997-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baessler K, O’Neill SM, Maher CF, Battistutta D. An interviewer-administered validated female pelvic floor questionnaire for community-based research. Menopause. 2008;15(5):973–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol 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):539–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2001;39(10):1039–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barber MD, Spino C, Janz NK, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Nager CW, et al. The minimum important differences for the urinary scales of the pelvic floor distress inventory and pelvic floor impact questionnaire. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(5):580.e581–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sirls LT, Tennstedt S, Brubaker L, Kim HY, Nygaard I, Rahn DD, et al. The minimum important difference for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(2):183–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baessler K, Junginger B. Validation of a pelvic floor questionnaire with improvement and satisfaction scales to assess symptom severity, bothersomeness and quality of life before and after pelvic floor therapy. Aktuelle Urol. 2011;42(5):316–22.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1271544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Junginger B, Seibt E, Baessler K. Bladder-neck effective, integrative pelvic floor rehabilitation program: follow-up investigation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;174:150–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin KY, Frawley HC, Granger CL, Denehy L. The Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire is a valid measure of pelvic floor symptoms in patients following surgery for colorectal cancer. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(5):1395–402.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Farthmann J, Watermann D, Niesel A, Funfgeld C, Kraus A, Lenz F, et al. Lower exposure rates of partially absorbable mesh compared to nonabsorbable mesh for cystocele treatment: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(5):749–58.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1929-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ong TA, Khong SY, Ng KL, Ting JR, Kamal N, Yeoh WS, et al. Using the Vibrance Kegel device with pelvic floor muscle exercise for stress urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled pilot study. Urology. 2015;86(3):487–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Durnea CM, Khashan AS, Kenny LC, Tabirca SS, O’Reilly BA. The role of prepregnancy pelvic floor dysfunction in postnatal pelvic morbidity in primiparous women. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(10):1363–74.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2381-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schoenfeld M, Fuermetz A, Muenster M, Ennemoser S, von Bodungen V, Friese K, et al. Sexuality in German urogynecological patients and healthy controls: is there a difference with respect to the diagnosis? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(2):567–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27(3 Suppl):S178–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katz JN, Harris TM, Larson MG, Krushell RJ, Brown CH, Fossel AH, et al. Predictors of functional outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. J Rheumatol. 1992;19(12):1938–42.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiegersma M, Panman CM, Berger MY, De Vet HC, Kollen BJ, Dekker JH. Minimal important change in the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 among women opting for conservative prolapse treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(4):397.e391–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman GR, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL. The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(5):815–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Verdam MGE, Oort FJ, Sprangers MAG. Structural equation modeling-based effect-size indices were used to evaluate and interpret the impact of response shift effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;85:37–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barber MD, Walters MD, Cundiff GW, Group PT. Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1492–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ousmen A, Conroy T, Guillemin F, Velten M, Jolly D, Mercier M, et al. Impact of the occurrence of a response shift on the determination of the minimal important difference in a health-related quality of life score over time. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):167.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0569-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Allison PJ, Locker D, Feine JS. Quality of life: a dynamic construct. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(2):221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tinetti A, Weir N, Tangyotkajohn U, Jacques A, Thompson J, Briffa K. Help-seeking behaviour for pelvic floor dysfunction in women over 55: drivers and barriers. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3618-2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pelvic Floor Centre Franziskus and St Joseph HospitalsBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Greenslopes Private Hospital and University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Royal Brisbane & Women’sWesley and Mater Hospitals BrisbaneAuchenflowerAustralia

Personalised recommendations