Fecal incontinence and quality of life assessment through questionnaires

• Autor(a) principal: Rodrigues,Beatriz Deoti Silva
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Outros Autores: Reis,Igor Guedes Nogueira, Coelho,Felipe Marcondes de Oliveira, Buzatti,Kelly Cristine de Lacerda Rodrigues
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632017000400341
• topic: Fecal incontinence; Quality of life; Signs and symptoms; Outcome assessment (health care); Fecal Incontinence Score; Evaluation of results of therapeutic interventions

ABSTRACT Background: Fecal incontinence causes a big impact on patient's quality of life. Our study analyzed the main questionnaires about fecal incontinence available internationally, aiming to delineate vantages and limitations of these instruments and their application, to mention the cultural aspects involved in the process of development and validation, as well as to suggest a reflection about the complexity of this matter. Results: Four of the instruments (Pescatori score, FISI, MSKCC bowel function instrument, and LARS score) do not include quality of life, working only as diagnostic tools. Two others, ‘Jorge and Wexner Fecal Incontinence score’, and ‘St Marks’ Fecal incontinence grading system’ can diagnose and grade fecal incontinence, however they are very subtle in assessing quality of life. The ‘EORTC Colorectal Cancer-specific’, on the other hand, focuses exclusively on quality of life. Although the ‘FIQL’ questionnaire assesses quality of life related to fecal incontinence, it does not measure leakage. Lastly, the ‘RAFIS’ assesses both aspects but too superficially. Conclusion: None of the questionnaires analyzed were able to simultaneously assess both fecal incontinence and quality of life successfully. Furthermore, the concepts related to fecal incontinence have different meanings depending on the cultural and psychosocial context. These differences are even greater when individuals of developed countries like the ones where these questionnaires were developed are compared to the ones of developing countries, such as Brazil, which makes its very hard for these instruments to be used universally.