- Jennifer L Melville: Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington Medical Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington 98195-6460, USA.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between patient report and physician assessment of urinary incontinence severity and to compare these assessments to a validated severity instrument.
STUDY DESIGN: A sequential sample of 153 women with urinary incontinence was enrolled over 12 months. Patients completed a detailed health questionnaire that included a medical comorbidity scale, 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12) the incontinence quality of life instrument, the PRIME-MD patient health questionnaire, and a patient incontinence severity assessment. The patient incontinence severity assessment is a single question that asks the patient to rate the severity of her incontinence symptoms on a 5-point Likert scale (range: 1 [mild] to 5 [severe]). After the physicians completed a detailed history, a physical examination, and a review of a 3-day voiding diary, they assigned a physician incontinence severity assessment score. The physician incontinence severity assessment is a physician rating of the severity of the patient's incontinence on a 5-point Likert scale (range: 1 [mild] to 5 [severe]). A validated severity index was computed and used for comparison. This is a multiplicative index that is based on frequency (4 levels) and amount of leakage (2 levels), which yields an index value of 1 to 8. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for patient incontinence severity assessment, the physician incontinence severity assessment scores, and the severity index values. Chi-square tests were used to determine differences between patient incontinence severity assessment and physician incontinence severity assessment ratings.
RESULTS: Spearman correlation coefficients for patient incontinence severity assessment and physician incontinence severity assessment were 0.62 (P <.001), for patient incontinence severity assessment and the severity index was 0.61 (P <.001), and for physician incontinence severity assessment and the severity index was 0.66 (P <.001). Agreement between patient assessment and physician assessment for different severity levels on the patient incontinence severity assessment and physician incontinence severity assessment are provided.
CONCLUSION: There is a high correlation between patient report and physician assessment of urinary incontinence severity. Both patient reports (patient incontinence severity assessment) and physician assessments (physician incontinence severity assessment) correlate well with a validated severity index. The agreement between patient and physician ratings is very high for mild incontinence but decreases as incontinence severity progresses.