Advertisement

Validity of utility measures for women with pelvic organ prolapse

Published:October 06, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.09.022

      Background

      Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition that frequently coexists with urinary and fecal incontinence. The impact of prolapse on quality of life is typically measured through condition-specific quality-of-life instruments. Utility preference scores are a standardized generic health-related quality-of-life measure that summarizes morbidity on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (optimum health). Utility preference scores quantify disease severity and burden and are widely used in cost-effectiveness research. The validity of utility preference instruments in women with pelvic organ prolapse has not been established.

      Objective

      The objective of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of generic quality-of-life instruments for measuring utility scores in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Our hypothesis was that women with multiple pelvic floor disorders would have worse (lower) utility scores than women with pelvic organ prolapse only and that women with all 3 pelvic floor disorders would have the worst (lowest) utility scores.

      Study Design

      This was a prospective observational study of 286 women with pelvic floor disorders from a referral female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery practice. All women completed the following general health-related quality-of-life questionnaires: Health Utilities Index Mark 3, EuroQol, and Short Form 6D, as well as a visual analog scale. Pelvic floor symptom severity and condition-specific quality of life were measured using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, respectively. We measured the relationship between utility scores and condition-specific quality-of-life scores and compared utility scores among 4 groups of women: (1) pelvic organ prolapse only, (2) pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, (3) pelvic organ prolapse and urgency urinary incontinence, and (4) pelvic organ prolapse, urinary incontinence, and fecal incontinence.

      Results

      Of 286 women enrolled, 191 (67%) had pelvic organ prolapse; mean age was 59 years and 73% were Caucasian. Among women with prolapse, 30 (16%) also had stress urinary incontinence, 39 (20%) had urgency urinary incontinence, and 42 (22%) had fecal incontinence. For the Health Utilities Index Mark 3, EuroQol, and Short Form 6D, the pattern in utility scores was noted to be lowest (worst) in the prolapse + urinary incontinence + fecal incontinence group (0.73-0.76), followed by the prolapse + urgency urinary incontinence group (0.77-0.85) and utility scores were the highest (best) for the prolapse only group (0.80-0.86). Utility scores from all generic instruments except the visual analog scale were significantly correlated with the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire total scores (r values –0.26 to –0.57), and prolapse, bladder, and bowel subscales (r values –0.16 to –0.50). Utility scores from all instruments except the visual analog scale were highly correlated with each other (r = 0.53-0.69, P < .0001).

      Conclusion

      The Health Utilities Index Mark 3, EuroQol, and Short Form 6D, but not the visual analog scale, provide valid measurements for utility scores in women with pelvic organ prolapse and associated pelvic floor disorders and could potentially be used for cost-effectiveness research.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hendrix S.L.
        • Clark A.
        • Nygaard I.
        • Aragaki A.
        • Barnabei V.
        • McTiernan A.
        Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women's Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 1160-1166
        • Digesu G.A.
        • Khullar V.
        • Cardozo L.
        • Robinson D.
        • Salvatore S.
        P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005; 16: 176-181
        • Jones K.A.
        • Shepherd J.P.
        • Oliphant S.S.
        • Wang L.
        • Bunker C.H.
        • Lowder J.L.
        Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979-2006.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202: 501.e1-501.e7
        • Swift S.E.
        The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 183: 277-285
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Barber M.D.
        • Paraiso M.F.
        • Walters M.D.
        Functional bowel and anorectal disorders in patients with pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 2105-2111
        • Lawrence J.M.
        • Lukacz E.S.
        • Nager C.W.
        • Hsu J.W.
        • Luber K.M.
        Prevalence and co-occurrence of pelvic floor disorders in community-dwelling women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 678-685
        • Bezerra L.R.
        • Vasconcelos Neto J.A.
        • Vasconcelos C.T.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of unreported bowel symptoms in women with pelvic floor dysfunction and the impact on their quality of life.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25: 927-933
        • Bordeianou L.
        • Hicks C.W.
        • Olariu A.
        • et al.
        Effect of coexisting pelvic floor disorders on fecal incontinence quality of life scores: a prospective, survey-based study.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2015; 58: 1091-1097
        • Drummond M.F.
        • Schulpher M.J.
        • Torrance G.W.
        • O'Brien B.J.
        • Stoddart G.L.
        Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs.
        3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York2005
        • Mehrez A.
        • Gafni A.
        Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents.
        Med Decis Making. 1989; 9: 142-149
        • Barber M.D.
        • Kuchibhatla M.N.
        • Pieper C.F.
        • Bump R.C.
        Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185: 1388-1395
        • Barber M.D.
        • Walters M.D.
        • Bump R.C.
        Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7).
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 103-113
        • Brazier J.E.
        • Roberts J.
        The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12.
        Med Care. 2004; 42: 851-859
        • Feeny D.
        • Furlong W.
        • Boyle M.
        • Torrance G.W.
        Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 1995; 7: 490-502
        • EuroQol Group
        EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.
        Health Policy. 1990; 16: 199-208
        • Dumville J.C.
        • Manca A.
        • Kitchener H.C.
        • Smith A.R.
        • Nelson L.
        • Torgerson D.J.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of open colposuspension versus laparoscopic colposuspension in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence.
        BJOG. 2006; 113: 1014-1022
        • Harvie H.S.
        • Arya L.A.
        • Saks E.K.
        • Sammel M.D.
        • Schwartz J.S.
        • Shea J.A.
        Utility preference score measurement in women with fecal incontinence.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 72.e1-72.e6
        • Harvie H.S.
        • Shea J.A.
        • Andy U.U.
        • Propert K.
        • Schwartz J.S.
        • Arya L.A.
        Validity of utility measures for women with urge, stress, and mixed urinary incontinence.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: 85.e1-85.e6
        • Manca A.
        • Sculpher M.J.
        • Ward K.
        • Hilton P.
        A cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence.
        BJOG. 2003; 110: 255-262
        • Pinto A.M.
        • Subak L.L.
        • Nakagawa S.
        • et al.
        The effect of weight loss on changes in health-related quality of life among overweight and obese women with urinary incontinence.
        Qual Life Res. 2012; 21: 1685-1694
        • Subak L.L.
        • Brubaker L.
        • Chai T.C.
        • et al.
        High costs of urinary incontinence among women electing surgery to treat stress incontinence.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 899-907
        • Bump R.C.
        • Mattiasson A.
        • Bo K.
        • et al.
        The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 10-17
        • Bradley C.S.
        • Rovner E.S.
        • Morgan M.A.
        • et al.
        A new questionnaire for urinary incontinence diagnosis in women: development and testing.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 66-73
        • Charlson M.E.
        • Pompei P.
        • Ales K.L.
        • MacKenzie C.R.
        A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.
        J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40: 373-383
        • Bharucha A.E.
        • Zinsmeister A.R.
        • Locke G.R.
        • Schleck C.
        • McKeon K.
        • Melton L.J.
        Symptoms and quality of life in community women with fecal incontinence.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006; 4: 1004-1009
        • Boreham M.K.
        • Richter H.E.
        • Kenton K.S.
        • et al.
        Anal incontinence in women presenting for gynecologic care: prevalence, risk factors, and impact upon quality of life.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 1637-1642
        • Coyne K.S.
        • Zhou Z.
        • Thompson C.
        • Versi E.
        The impact on health-related quality of life of stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence.
        BJU Int. 2003; 92: 731-735
        • Digesu G.A.
        • Chaliha C.
        • Salvatore S.
        • Hutchings A.
        • Khullar V.
        The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity to symptoms and quality of life.
        BJOG. 2005; 112: 971-976
        • Fritel X.
        • Varnoux N.
        • Zins M.
        • Breart G.
        • Ringa V.
        Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse at midlife, quality of life, and risk factors.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 609-616
        • Humalajarvi N.
        • Aukee P.
        • Kairaluoma M.V.
        • et al.
        Quality of life and pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms after hysterectomy with or without pelvic organ prolapse.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 182: 16-21
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Barber M.D.
        Women seeking treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse have decreased body image and quality of life.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 1455-1461
        • Markland A.D.
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Rahn D.D.
        • et al.
        Irritable bowel syndrome and quality of life in women with fecal incontinence.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017; 23: 179-183
        • Minassian V.A.
        • Devore E.
        • Hagan K.
        • Grodstein F.
        Severity of urinary incontinence and effect on quality of life in women by incontinence type.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 1083-1090
        • Papanicolaou S.
        • Hunskaar S.
        • Lose G.
        • Sykes D.
        Assessment of bothersomeness and impact on quality of life of urinary incontinence in women in France, Germany, Spain and the UK.
        BJU Int. 2005; 96: 831-838
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
        Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (NJ)1988
        • Bryant F.B.
        • Yarnold P.R.
        Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
        in: Grimm L.G. Yarnold P.R. Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. American Psychological Association, Washington (DC)1995: 99-136
        • Torrance G.W.
        • Feeny D.
        Visual analog scales.
        Med Decis Making. 2016; 21: 329-334
        • Drummond M.
        Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies.
        Ann Med. 2001; 33: 344-349
        • Grootendorst P.
        • Feeny D.
        • Furlong W.
        Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey.
        Med Care. 2000; 38: 290-299
        • Horsman J.
        • Furlong W.
        • Feeny D.
        • Torrance G.
        The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1: 54
        • Walters S.J.
        • Brazier J.E.
        What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1: 4
        • Walters S.J.
        • Brazier J.E.
        Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 1523-1532
        • Fryback D.G.
        • Dunham N.C.
        • Palta M.
        • et al.
        U.S. norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the national health measurement study.
        Med Care. 2007; 45: 1162-1170
        • Luo N.
        • Johnson J.A.
        • Shaw J.W.
        • Feeny D.
        • Coons S.J.
        Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index.
        Med Care. 2005; 43: 1078-1086