Rezoana Rashid

Communication barriers among Spanish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders: lost in translation?

Objectives The purpose of our study was to evaluate barriers in communication and disease understanding among office staff and interpreters when communicating with Spanish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders. Methods We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate barriers to communication with Spanish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders among office staff and interpreters. Sixteen office staff and interpreters were interviewed; interview questions focused on experiences with Spanish-speaking patients with pelvic floor disorders in the clinic setting. Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using grounded theory methodology. Results Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed several barriers in communication as identified by office staff and interpreters. Three major classes were predominant: patient, interpreter, and system-related barriers. Patient-related barriers included a lack of understanding of anatomy and medical terminology and inhibited discussions due to embarrassment. Provider-related barriers included poor interpreter knowledge of pelvic floor vocabulary and the use of office staff without interpreting credentials. System-related barriers included poor access to information. From these preliminary themes, an emergent concept was revealed: it is highly likely that Spanish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders have poor understanding of their condition owing to multiple obstacles in communication. Conclusions There are many levels of barriers to communications with Latin women treated for pelvic floor disorders, arising from the patient, interpreter, and the system itself. These barriers contribute to a low level of understanding of their diagnosis, treatment options, and administered therapies.

Readability of common health-related quality-of-life instruments in female pelvic medicine.

Objectives The average American adult reads below the eighth-grade level. To determine whether self-reported health-related quality-of-life questionnaires used for pelvic floor disorders are appropriate for American women, we measured reading levels of questionnaires for urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic organ prolapse (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI). Methods An online literature search identified questionnaires addressing UI, POP, and FI. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid reading level and ease formulas. Flesch-Kincaid grade level indicates the average grade one is expected to completely and lucidly comprehend the written text. Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score, from 0 to 100, indicates how easy the written text can be read. Results Questionnaires were categorized by UI, POP, FI, and combined pelvic floor symptoms. The median Flesch-Kincaid reading level was 7.2, 10.1, 7.6, and 9.7, for UI, POP, FI, and combined pelvic floor symptoms, respectively. Reading levels varied greatly between questionnaires, with only 54% of questionnaires written below the eighth-grade level. Conclusions We identified significant variation in reading levels among the questionnaires and found the 2 most commonly used questionnaires per survey in 2008 at Society of Urodynamics and Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction were above the recommended eighth-grade reading level. As specialty societies focus on standardizing questionnaires for research, reading levels should be considered so they are generalizable to larger populations of women with pelvic floor disorders.

How Dry is “OAB-Dry”?: Perspectives from Patients and Physician Experts

PURPOSE Overactive bladder is subtyped into overactive bladder-wet and overactive bladder-dry, based on the presence or absence, respectively, of urgency incontinence. To better understand patient and physician perspectives on symptoms among women with overactive bladder-wet and overactive bladder-dry, we performed patient focus groups and interviews with experts in urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five focus groups totaling 33 patients with overactive bladder symptoms, including 3 groups of overactive bladder-wet and 2 groups of overactive bladder-dry patients, were conducted. Topics addressed patient perceptions of overactive bladder symptoms, treatments and outcomes. A total of 12 expert interviews were then done in which experts were asked to describe their views on overactive bladder-wet and overactive bladder-dry. Focus groups and expert interviews were transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data analysis was performed using grounded theory methodology, as described by Charmaz. RESULTS During the focus groups sessions, women screened as overactive bladder-dry shared the knowledge that they would probably leak if no toilet were available. This knowledge was based on a history of leakage episodes in the past. Those few patients with no history of leakage had a clinical picture more consistent with painful bladder syndrome than overactive bladder. Physician expert interviews revealed the belief that many patients labeled as overactive bladder-dry may actually be mild overactive bladder-wet. CONCLUSIONS Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with experts suggest that a spectrum exists between very mild overactive bladder-wet and severe overactive bladder-wet. Scientific investigations are needed to determine whether urgency without fear of leakage constitutes a unique clinical entity.