Considering Low Health Literacy: How Do the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-Short Form 7 Measure Up?

考虑到健康素养较低:盆底功能障碍量表-简表 20 和盆底影响问卷-简表 7 的测量结果如何?

阅读:2

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the readability and understandability of 2 commonly used pelvic floor disorder questionnaires, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-Short Form 7 (PFIQ-7), in a low health literacy patient population. METHODS: Flesh-Kincaid, SMOG, Fry, and FORCAST readability assessment tools were used to assign US grade levels to each questionnaire (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7). Two health literacy experts used PEMAT and ELF-Q tools to determine understandability, organization, content, and quality of each form. A focus group of women with low health literacy used Stop Light Coding and a facilitator-prompted discussion to further evaluate understandability and critique the forms. RESULTS: The PFIQ-7 required higher reading ability compared with PFDI-20 (ninth to 11th vs sixth to eighth mean grade level equivalents). Expert and focus group reviews identified concerns regarding purpose, formatting, and word choice in both forms. Focus group participants recommended assistance with questionnaire completion from clinical staff and gave mean overall ratings of 5.4 (0-10/worst to best) for PFDI-20 and 8.0 for PFIQ-7. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of potential barriers to understanding and completion may improve utilization of and accuracy of patient responses to PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 in women with low health literacy.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。