DEVELOPMENT OF PELVIC FLOOR HEALTH KNOWLEDGE QUIZ IN TURKISH PEOPLE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Year 2021, Volume: 32 Issue: 2, 122 - 131, 10.08.2021

Wala'a Al'deges Şeyda Toprak Çelenay

https://doi.org/10.21653/tjpr.754949

Cited By: 6

Abstract

Purpose: Although pelvic floor problems are a wide and important issue, the tools that question individuals’ knowledge level related to these problems are not comprehensive and sufficient. This study aimed to develop a Pelvic Floor Health Knowledge Quiz (PFHKQ) and to determine its validity and reliability.
Methods: A 37-item quiz was prepared to comprehensively measure the participants' knowledge of pelvic floor health and administered in 370 participants. Face validity, content validity, construct validity and known-group validity were analyzed. The Person Separation Index (PSI) and the Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20) coefficient values were calculated for reliability.
Results: The face validity analysis showed that all items of the test were quite understandable (range 83.02%-98.11%). According to the Rasch model, a knowledge quiz with three subscales (function/dysfunction; risk/etiology; diagnosis and treatment) and 29 items were defined. Individuals who were health professionals or students in the health field had more knowledge based on the scores they received from the PFHKQ compared to the other participants (p < 0.05). There were differences between the participants' knowledge scores in terms of previously having heard of any pelvic floor problems and pelvic floor exercises (PFE) (p < 0.05). It was found that the PSI and the KR-20 values were 0.892 and 0.890 for the function/dysfunction subscale, 0.938 and 0.920 for the risk/etiology subscale, 0.912 and 0.924 for the diagnosis and treatment subscale, and 0.952 and 0.926 for the PFHKQ total score, respectively.
Conclusion: The PFHKQ was found to be a valid and reliable tool in the Turkish people.

Keywords

Knowledge, Pelvic floor, Questionnaire, Reliability, Validity

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

The authors thank Turkan Akbayrak, Serap Ozgul, Derya Ozer Kaya, Esra Calık Var and Ayse Filiz Avsar for expert opinions in the development of the PFHKQ, Ayse Filiz Avsar and Kemal Oskay for helping patient organization and Afra Alkan for helping statistics analysis of the study.

PELVİK TABAN SALIĞI BİLGİ TESTİ'NİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK

Abstract

Amaç: Pelvik taban disfonksiyonları birbiri ile ilişkili çok çeşitli klinik koşulları kapsamasına rağmen, bireylerin bu problemlerle ilişkili bilgi düzeylerini sorgulayan araçlar kapsamlı ve yeterli değildir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Pelvik Taban Sağlığı Bilgi Testi (PTSBT)'ni geliştirmek ve testin geçerlik ve güvenirliği belirlemekti. Yöntem: Pelvik taban sağlığı bilgisini ölçmek amacıyla 37 maddeden oluşan bir test hazırlandı ve 370 katılımcıya (273 kadın, 97 erkek) uygulandı. Geçerlik için görünüş geçerliği, kapsam geçerliği, yapı geçerliği ve bilinen grup geçerliği analiz edildi. Güvenirlik için Birey Ayırsama İndeksi (BAİ) ve Kuder Richardson-20 (KR-20) katsayıları hesaplandı. Bulgular: Görünüş geçerliği analizi testin tüm maddelerinin yeterince anlaşılır (% 83,02 ile % 98,11) olduğunu gösterdi. Rasch modeline göre üç alt boyutlu (fonksiyon/disfonksiyon; risk/etiyoloji; tanı ve tedavi) ve 29 maddeli bir bilgi testi tanımlandı. Sağlık çalışanı veya öğrencisi olan bireyler, diğer katılımcılarla göre daha fazla PTSBT skorlarına sahipti (p<0,05). Pelvik taban problemlerini ve pelvik taban egzersizlerini (PTE) daha önceden duymuş olmaları ve uygulamış olmaları açısından katılımcıların bilgi skorları arasında anlamlı farklılık vardı (p<0,05). BAİ ve KR-20 değerleri, sırasıyla, fonksiyon/disfonksiyon alt boyutu için 0,892 ile 0,890, risk/etiyoloji alt boyutu için 0,938 ile 0,920, tanı ve tedavi alt boyutu için 0,912 ile 0,924 ve PTSBT toplam skoru için 0,952 ile 0,926 olduğu bulundu. Sonuç: Türk toplumunda PTSBT'nin geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu gösterildi.

Keywords

Bilgi, Pelvik taban, Anketler

Project Number

yok

References

• 1.Mantle J, Haslam J, Baeton S. Physiotherapy in obstetrics and gynaecology. 2nd ed. London: Elsevier; 2004.
• 2. Barber M. Contemporary views on female pelvic anatomy. Cleve Clin J Med. 2005;72:S3-11.
• 3. Raizada V, Mittal RK. Pelvic floor anatomy and applied physiology. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2008;37(3):493-509.
• 4. Berghmans L, Bernards AT, Heeswijk-Faase V, Westerik-Verschuuren EH, Slieker-ten Hove MC, Hendriks EJM. Dutch guidelines for physiotherapy in patients with stress urinary incontinence:an update. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(2):171–179.
• 5. Balestroni G, Bertolotti G. EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D): an instrument for measuring quality of life. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2015;78(3):155-159.
• 6. Irwin DE, Milsom I, Hunskaar S, Reilly K, Kopp Z, Herschorn S et al. Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder and other lower urinary symptoms in five countries; results of the EPIC study. Eur Urol. 2006;50(6):1306-1314.
• 7. İncesu C. Cinsel işlevler ve cinsel işlev bozuklukları. J Clin Psy. 2004;7(3):3-13.
• 8. Cohen D, Gonzalez J, Goldstein I. The role of pelvic floor muscles in male sexual dysfunction and pelvic pain. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:53–62.
• 9. Barber MD. Questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18(4):461-465.
• 10. Cam C, Sakallı M, Ay P, Cam M, Karateke A. Validation of the short forms of the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) and the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) in a Turkish population. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26:129-133.
• 11. Shah AD, Massagli MP, Kohli N, Rajan SS, Braaten KP, Hoyte L. Reliable, valid instrument to assess patient knowledge about urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19:1283–1289.
• 12. Branch LG, Walker LA, Wetle TT, DuBeasu CE, Resnick NM. Urinary incontinence knowledge among community-dwelling people 65 years of age and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42(12):1257-1262.
• 13. Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch Measurement Model in Rheumatology: What Is It and Why Use It? When Should It Be Applied, And What Should One Look for In A Rasch Paper? Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(8):1358-1362.
• 14. Wright BD. Local dependency, correlations and principal components. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1996;10:509-511.
• 15. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 1st ed. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press; 1960.
• 16. Georg R. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 1st ed. Danmarks: Paedagogiske Institut; 1960.
• 17. Tennant A, Mckenna SP, Hagell P. Application of rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health. 2004;7:S22-26.
• 18. Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol 2007;46(1):1-18.
• 19. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42.
• 20. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293-307.
• 21. Kahyaoğlu Süt H, Küçükkaya B. Knowledge and Practices of Women Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises. SDÜ Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2018;9(3):15-20.
• 22. Ekin M, Kaya C, Öztürk E, Cengiz H, Üzer G, Yaşar L. The Level of Knowledge of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction After Delivery in Women who Attended to a Tertiary Center. Istanbul Med J. 2018;19(4):277-280.
• 23. Wright BD, Masters GN. 1st ed. Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago, USA: Mesa Press; 1982.
• 24. Fisher WP Jr. Reliability, Separation, Strata Statistics [online]. Website http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt63i.htm. [accessed 20 Septemper 2019].
• 25. Parden AM, Griffin RL, Russell MD, Hoover K, Ellington DR, Gleason JL, et al. Prevalence, awareness, and understanding of pelvic floor disorders in adolescents and young women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016; 22(5): 346–354.