ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery
Considering Low Health Literacy: How Do the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-Short Form 7 Measure Up?
Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery. 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.
- Readability and Understandability of Spanish Language Urogynecology Questionnaires.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Prospective Comparative Study of EMSella Therapy and Surgical Anterior Colporrhaphy for Urinary Incontinence: Outcomes and Efficacy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development of a conceptual framework for a new patient-reported outcome measure for pain in women following mesh surgery for pelvic floor disorders: a qualitative study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Health literacy and PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 completion in urogynecology patients.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the readability and understandability of 2 commonly used pelvic floor disorder questionnaires, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-Short Form 7 (PFIQ-7), in a low health literacy patient population.
methodsFlesh-Kincaid, SMOG, Fry, and FORCAST readability assessment tools were used to assign US grade levels to each questionnaire (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7). Two health literacy experts used PEMAT and ELF-Q tools to determine understandability, organization, content, and quality of each form. A focus group of women with low health literacy used Stop Light Coding and a facilitator-prompted discussion to further evaluate understandability and critique the forms.
resultsThe PFIQ-7 required higher reading ability compared with PFDI-20 (ninth to 11th vs sixth to eighth mean grade level equivalents). Expert and focus group reviews identified concerns regarding purpose, formatting, and word choice in both forms. Focus group participants recommended assistance with questionnaire completion from clinical staff and gave mean overall ratings of 5.4 (0-10/worst to best) for PFDI-20 and 8.0 for PFIQ-7.
conclusionsKnowledge of potential barriers to understanding and completion may improve utilization of and accuracy of patient responses to PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 in women with low health literacy.
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.