Development of an ICF‐based questionnaire for urinary and/or fecal incontinence (ICF‐IAF): The male patients' perspective using focus groups. Issue 6 (26th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kuhn, Manuel; Gass, Stephanie; Koenig, Irene; Radlinger, Lorenz; Koehler, Barbara
• Is Part Of: Neurourology and urodynamics. Volume 38:Issue 6(2019:Aug.)
• Page Start: 1663
• Page End: 1668
• Publication Date: 2019-05-26
• Subjects: assessment, patient outcomes -- evaluation qualitative -- evaluation quantitative -- health holistic; Urinary organs -- Periodicals; Urodynamics -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.24034
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0733-2467

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: This study seeks to explore barriers faced by and resources available to male patients with urinary (UI) and/or fecal incontinence (FI) based on the ICF framework. As a result, this study contributes to the development of the ICF‐Incontinence Assessment Form (ICF‐IAF), which is designed to be a standardized planning and evaluation tool for interventions in a multidisciplinary setting. Methods: A mixed‐method sequential design that places emphasis on the quantitative approach was considered appropriate for this study. Focus group interviews (FG) were chosen to collect data. Data were analysed with deductive content analysis and themes identified during FG were linked to the most corresponding ICF categories by two raters. Cohen's κ was calculated to determine interrater reliability. Results: Four FG were conducted with a total of 13 male participants. The mean age of the participants was 74.7 years. A total of 73 barriers and resources on the second ICF level (body functions 26, body structures five, activities and participation 26 and environmental factors 16), whereby four categories were not sufficiently covered by the ICF, could be identified. The κ score for the two raters was 0.82. Conclusions: While barriers are fundamental factors affecting patients, this study found that resources are as important and should not be overlooked in the conventional treatment in both UI and FI‐specific assessments.