ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Validation of an instrument to assess barriers to care-seeking for accidental bowel leakage in women: the BCABL questionnaire.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Small-Group, Community-Member Intervention for Urinary and Bowel Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Trial
- Instruments for the Assessment of Fecal and Anal Incontinence: A Scoping Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Men and women experience different barriers to care seeking for fecal incontinence.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2023Article
- Reasons Behind Preferences for Community-Based Continence Promotion.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2020Article
- Towards a more scientific approach to measuring barriers to seeking health care in women with fecal incontinence: the BCABL questionnaire.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisFewer than 30% of women with accidental bowel leakage (ABL) seek care, despite the existence of effective, minimally invasive therapies. We developed and validated a condition-specific instrument to assess barriers to care-seeking for ABL in women.
methodsAdult women with ABL completed an electronic survey about condition severity, patient activation, previous care-seeking, and demographics. The Barriers to Care-seeking for Accidental Bowel Leakage (BCABL) instrument contained 42 potential items completed at baseline and again 2 weeks later. Paired t tests evaluated test-retest reliability. Factor analysis evaluated factor structure and guided item retention. Cronbach's alpha evaluated internal consistency. Within and across factor item means generated a summary BCABL score used to evaluate scale validity with six external criterion measures.
resultsAmong 1,677 click-throughs, 736 (44%) entered the survey; 95% of eligible female respondents (427 out of 458) provided complete data. Fifty-three percent of respondents had previously sought care for their ABL; median age was 62 years (range 27-89); mean Vaizey score was 12.8 (SD = 5.0), indicating moderate to severe ABL. Test-retest reliability was excellent for all items. Factor extraction via oblique rotation resulted in the final structure of 16 items in six domains, within which internal consistency was high. All six external criterion measures correlated significantly with BCABL score.
conclusionsThe BCABL questionnaire, with 16 items mapping to six domains, has excellent criterion validity and test-retest reliability when administered electronically in women with ABL. The BCABL can be used to identify care-seeking barriers for ABL in different populations, inform targeted interventions, and measure their effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.