Open Access

ARTICLE

Validation of electronic urinary incontinence questionnaires

Sharon E. Straus¹, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc², Michael Scott Orr³

1 Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute at St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2 Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
3 Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Address correspondence to Dr. Michael Scott Orr, Process Redesign Offi ce, St. Michael’s Hospital, PMO 2 Queen Street, 904, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8 Canada

Canadian Journal of Urology 2010, 17(3), 5195-5199.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether there is any significant difference between the electronic and the paper-based version of Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire (UDI-6) and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 questionnaire (IIQ-7).
Materials and methods: An electronic questionnaire and clinical tool was developed using a combination of open source questionnaire software and custom programming that closely replicated the paper version of the UDI-6 and IIQ-7 questionnaires. Ethics were reviewed and approved by the University Health Network of Toronto. The study randomized participants from the Urinary Incontinence Clinic to either complete the paper-and-pen version of the questionnaires or the electronic version at the beginning of their clinic visit. Sample size was determined to be 50 to sufficiently power the study but due to early closing of the clinic only 26 participants could be enrolled in the study.
Results and conclusion: The study found that there was no significant difference (p < .05) between the standardized pen-and-paper and electronic versions of the UDI-6 and IIQ-7. The electronic version can be used in place of the paper version facilitating physicians understanding and monitoring of the impact of incontinence on patients in order to formulate an appropriate treatment plan.

---

Keywords

---