Premium
Ferrans and Powers’ Quality of life index applied in urinary incontinence research – a pilot study
Author(s) -
Rannestad Toril,
Skjeldestad Finn Egil
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of caring sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.678
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1471-6712
pISSN - 0283-9318
DOI - 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00852.x
Subject(s) - urinary incontinence , quality of life (healthcare) , population , medicine , reliability (semiconductor) , gerontology , clinical psychology , physical therapy , gynecology , psychology , nursing , urology , environmental health , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics
Scand J Caring Sci; 2011; 25; 410–416
Ferrans and Powers’ Quality of life index applied in urinary incontinence research – a pilot studyBackground: The aim of this study was to explore the usefulness of applying a global, evaluation‐based quality of life (QoL) questionnaire in assessing the impact of urinary incontinence (UI) on women’s lives. Methods: The study population comprised long‐term gynaecological cancer survivors (n = 160) and controls from the general population (n = 493). The presence of UI was assessed by the question ‘Do you leak urine?’ while UI perceived as a problem was assessed on a five‐point scale from ‘No problem’ to ‘A very large problem’. QoL was measured by Ferrans & Powers’ QoL index (QLI), generic version II. Results: UI was distributed equally among women with a history of gynaecological cancer and among women from the general population (34%). UI has a negative impact on overall QLI as well as a wide range of items. Approximately 20% of the incontinent women defined UI as no problem, with QLI scores similar to continent women. Only 5% experienced UI as a large/very large problem; with exceptionally low QLI scores. The psychometric testing of QLI (acceptability, internal consistency reliability and known‐group validity) supports the use of QLI in UI‐studies. Conclusions: The Ferrans & Powers’ QLI is considered an acceptable tool for UI research, but further psychometric testing is required.