Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society · 2008
Comparison of recall and daily self-report of fecal incontinence severity.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fisher Katharine, Bliss Donna Z, Savik Kay
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Fecal incontinence (FI) severity is determined by self-report, and most tools rely on recall of symptoms. This study examined whether recall of FI severity differed from daily reports on a diary and the factors influencing any difference. INSTRUMENTS AND DESIGN: Data of 96 participants (mean age 59 years, 78% female) reported on 3 data collection forms (a demographics form, a bowel history, and a stool diary) were analyzed. Data collected during an initial bowel history when participants reported FI severity using recall were compared to similar data participants recorded on a 14-day daily stool diary during a baseline period of a study investigating the effects of different types of dietary fiber on FI.
RESULTS: The total FI severity score from the daily stool diary (median 5.0, range 1.2-15.5; P = .04) was significantly higher (worse FI) than the recalled bowel history (median 3.0, range 0.36-27.5). A higher, more positive difference in scores between recall and daily diary reporting indicated greater underreporting on recall. Caregivers underreported FI severity on recall compared to noncaregivers (P = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for underreporting FI are probably multifactorial; findings suggest that being a caregiver and having double incontinence are contributing factors. Clinicians should inquire about FI with a discerning yet sensitive approach. Use of a daily stool diary is recommended in research and may be useful in practice.
RESULTS: The total FI severity score from the daily stool diary (median 5.0, range 1.2-15.5; P = .04) was significantly higher (worse FI) than the recalled bowel history (median 3.0, range 0.36-27.5). A higher, more positive difference in scores between recall and daily diary reporting indicated greater underreporting on recall. Caregivers underreported FI severity on recall compared to noncaregivers (P = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for underreporting FI are probably multifactorial; findings suggest that being a caregiver and having double incontinence are contributing factors. Clinicians should inquire about FI with a discerning yet sensitive approach. Use of a daily stool diary is recommended in research and may be useful in practice.