ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
A validated translation of a survey for measuring incontinence knowledge in Chinese-speaking American immigrants.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of a Mobile App-Based Urinary Incontinence Self-Management Intervention Among Pregnant Women in China: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Incontinence Quiz (IQ): Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Validation of the French Version.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Factors associated with health-seeking for urinary incontinence in Hong Kong Chinese women: a cross-sectional study.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Knowledge of pelvic floor disorders amongst immigrant women in Canada.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisUrinary incontinence is common amongst Chinese immigrants. These women are a rapidly growing population in the USA who require unique assessment tools due to language barriers. Presently, there are no Chinese language surveys to assess knowledge of urinary incontinence. Our goal was to translate and validate a urinary incontinence knowledge survey from English into Chinese.
methodsThe English language Urinary Incontinence Quiz (UIQ) developed and validated by Branch et al. for the Educational Demonstration of Urinary Continence Assessment and Treatment for the Elderly program assesses general knowledge of urinary incontinence as a disease entity. We translated it into Chinese using the forward translation/back translation technique. The Chinese and English versions were then administered to bilingual volunteers in a nonrandomized order during a single encounter. Their responses were analyzed using Cohen's kappa coefficient to establish the validity of the translated knowledge survey.
resultsMinimal reconciliation was needed in construction of the Chinese survey. Minor English grammatical corrections were made to the back-translated English survey. One question testing two knowledge concepts was separated into two questions to allow clear testing of both concepts individually. Twenty-one bilingual participants performed the validity testing. Over 50% (8 out of 15) of the questions showed nearly perfect agreement with a kappa coefficient >0.80, 5 out of the 15 questions showed substantial agreement with kappa coefficients between 0.61 and 0.8 and two questions showed moderate agreement with kappa coefficients between 0.4 and 0.6.
conclusionsWe validated a translation of the UIQ for assessment of urinary incontinence knowledge in Chinese-speaking immigrants to the USA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27924375What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.