Development and evaluation of a new pelvic floor muscle training Patient reported Outcome Measures (PROM) (PFMT-P). (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liebergall-Wischnitzer, M.; Hopsink, T.; Shimony-Kanat, S.; Idilbi, N.; Noble, A.; Kienski Woloski Wruble, A.
• Is Part Of: European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. Volume 264(2021)
• Page Start: 353
• Page End: 357
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Pelvic floor muscle training -- Validity -- Reliability -- PROM; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Reproductive health -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Reproduction -- Periodicals; Obstétrique -- Périodiques; Gynécologie -- Périodiques; Reproduction -- Périodiques; Verloskunde; Gynaecologie; Voortplanting (biologie); Gynecology; Obstetrics; Reproduction; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.07.050
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-2115

Abstract

Highlights: This study presents the development and evaluation of a new pelvic floor muscle training Patient reported Outcome Measures (PROM) (PFMT-P). The tool contains the following variables: knowledge, source of knowledge, and practice. The main source of knowledge was not a health care provider. There was a significant association between knowledge and practice (B = 0.1198, BCI 95% [0.446; 1.950] p = 0.002). Abstract: Objective: There are several Patient reported Outcome Measures (PROM) of knowledge, source of knowledge and practice of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), in different combinations but few integrating all three in one instrument. The objective of this study was the initial psychometric testing of a new PFMT PROM (PFMT-P), which aims to describe the knowledge, source of knowledge, and practices of PFMT for use by general female population, in order to contribute to preliminary validity and reliability. Study design: This study offered psychometric testing (validity and reliability) of a new assessment tool concerning PFMT (PFMT-P). The sample included 323 non-pregnant women, aged 20-50, who were heath care professionals and ancillary staff in one medical center in northern Israel. The PFMT-P was developed in Hebrew and composed of 3 sections: knowledge (score range 0-3), source of knowledge (initially scored), and practice (score range 3-35). A demographic and general health questionnaire was included. Results: The face and content validity of the PFMT-P were evaluated by five experts with a factor analysis done on the practice component. Test-retest scores for internal consistency were reported for a group of 20 women, to whom the tool was administered 2 weeks apart. The results of the questionnaire components were knowledge, r= 0.538, p=0.014, and practice r=0.878, p<0.001. The component, source of knowledge on practice, showed non-significant results (p=0.796). Cronbach's alpha for the PFMT-P was 0.921 for the practice component. Conclusion: The PFMT-P was employed for the first time in a descriptive, correlational study, where its validity and reliability was tested and shows promise. The questionnaire is brief and easy to use. Continued research using this new PROM needs to be done to establish it as an assessment tool for PFMT programs.