Reasons for non-disclosure of faecal incontinence: a comparison between two survey methods

Abstract

We explored reasons for discordance in disclosure of faecal incontinence (FI) between 2 measurement instruments: the Self Administered Faecal Incontinence Questionnaire (SAFIQ) and the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (CCF-FI) METHODS: Patients >or=18 years attending the urogynaecology (n=135) and colorectal (n=148) outpatient clinics at The Townsville Hospital, a referral centre serving regional North Queensland, Australia, were invited to complete the SAFIQ and answer questions from the CCF-FI asked by their treating doctor. Selected patients undertook semistructured interviews. 262 patients completed both questionnaires. The prevalence of FI in this population was 25.6% (SAFIQ) and 29.9% (CCF-FI). 24% disclosed FI on both instruments, 3.1% on SAFIQ only and 6.1% on CCF-FI only. Major reasons for non-disclosure were: FI historical but not current; problem not considered as FI by patient; SAFIQ too long; condition embarrassing; doctor considered too busy; patient wanted to focus on primary reason for consultation; and doctor explained that a one-off bout of uncontrollable diarrhoea was not FI. Interviewees reported they would respond to FI questions initiated by their general practitioner (GP) during regular consultations, or in a generic questionnaire in the GP's surgery. GPs could identify patients with FI by initiating discussions during routine consultations. Such patients could then be referred to colorectal surgeons for treatment. A more specific definition of FI, which excludes historical data and isolated instances of diarrhoea, is desirable. A measurement instrument suitable for population surveys should contain simple language and acknowledge issues of embarrassment.