Emine Seda TÜRKYILMAZ, Gül Deniz YILMAZ YELVAR, asemin ÇIRAK, Yasemin PARLAK DEMİR

Gebelerde Pelvik Kuşak Anketinin Kültürel Adaptasyonu, Güvenilirliği ve Geçerliği

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı gebe kadınlarda Pelvik Kuşak Anketi'ni (PKA) Türkçe'ye çevirmek ve testtekrar test güvenilirliği ve geçerliğini değerlendirmekti. Materyal ve Metot: Çalışmaya pelvik kuşak ağrısı olan 135 gebe alındı. Ağrı şiddetini değerlendirmek için görsel analog skalası, duruma özel sağlık ile ilgili yaşam kalitesine için PKA, sağlıkla ilgili yaşam kalitesi için Nottingham Sağlık Profili, özürlülük düzeyi için Oswestry Özürlülük İndeksi, PKA'da kültürlerarası uyum için kılavuzlar kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Çalışmaya yaş ortalaması 30 ± 4,77 olan 135 gebe dahil edildi. Test-tekrar test güvenirliği için sınıflar arası korelasyon katsayısı puanı, PKA aktivite alt boyutu için 0,972 (% 95 CI = 0,968-0,977), PKA semptom alt boyutu için 0,910 (% 95 CI = 0,905-0,915) ve PKA toplam için 0,979 (% 95 CI = 0,905-0,915) olarak bulundu. Sonuç: Çalışma, pelvik kuşak ağrısı olan Türkçe konuşan gebelerde PKA'nin Türkçe versiyonunun hem sakatlığı hem de semptomu ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu ve iyi psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.

Cultural Adaptation, Reliability and Validity of The Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire in Pregnant

Objectives: The aims of this study were to translate the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ) to Turkishand to assess its test-retest reliability and validity in pregnant women.Materials and Methods: One hundred and thirty-five pregnant with pelvic girdle pain were recruitedin the study. Visual analog scale was used to evaluate pain intensity, PGQ for condition-specific healthrelated quality of life, Nottingham Health Profile for health-related quality of life, Oswestry DisabilityIndex for disability level, The guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation in PGQ was used.Results: A total of 135 pregnant with a mean age of the 30±4.77 years included in the study. Interclasscorrelation coefficient score for test-retest reliability was 0.972 (95% CI= 0.968-0.977) for PGQ activitysubscale, 0.910 (95% CI=0.905-0.915) for PGQ symptom subscale and 0.979 (95% CI= 0.975-0.983) forPGQ total.Conclusion: The study demonstrated that Turkish version of PGQ is a valid and reliable tool formeasuring both disability and symptom and good psychometric properties in Turkish speakingpregnants with pelvic girdle pain.

PDF

___

1. Vermani E, Mittal R, Weeks A. Pelvic girdle pain and low back pain in pregnancy: a review. Pain Pract 2010;10:60-71.
2. Vleeming A, Albert HB, Ostgaard HC, Sturesson B, Stuge B. European guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pelvic girdle pain. Eur Spine J 2008;17:794-819.
3. Yoo H, Shin D, Song C. Changes in the spinal curvature, degree of pain, balance ability, and gait ability according to pregnancy period in pregnant and nonpregnant women. J Phys Ther Sci 2015;27:279-84
4. Takeda K, Shimizu K, Imura M. Changes in balance strategy in the third trimester. J Phys Ther Sci 2015;27:1813-7.
5. Wu WH, Meijer OG, Uegaki K, et.al. Pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (PPP), I: Terminology, clinical presentation, and prevalence. Eur Spine J 2004;13:575-89.
6. Bjelland EK, Stuge B, Engdahl B, Eberhard-Gran M. The effect of emotional distress on persistent pelvic girdle pain after delivery: a longitudinal population study. BJOG 2013;120:32-40.
7. Stuge B, Garratt A, Krogstad Jenssen H, Grotle M. The pelvic girdle questionnaire: a conditionspecific instrument for assessing activity limitations and symptoms in people with pelvic girdle pain. Phys Ther 2011;91:1096-108.
8. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1417-32.
9. Gul ED, Yilmaz O, Bodur H. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score-physical function short-form (KOOS-PS). J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2013;26:461-6.
10. Melikoglu MA, Kocabas H, Sezer I, Bilgilisoy M, Tuncer T. Validation of the Turkish version of the Quebec back pain disability scale for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:219-24.
11. Grotle M, Garratt AM, Krogstad Jenssen H, Stuge B. Reliability and construct validity of selfreport questionnaires for patients with pelvic girdle pain. Phys Ther 2012;92:111-23.
12. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brein JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-3.
13. Yakut E, Duger T, Oksuz C et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:581-5.
14. Baum FE, Cooke RD. Community-health needs assessment: use of the Nottingham health profile in an Australian study. Med J Aust 1989;150:581-90.
15. Kucukdeveci AA, McKenna SP, Kutlay, Gursel Y, Whalley D, Arasıl T. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Rehabil Res 2000;23: 31-8.
16. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25: 3186-91.
17. Feise RJ, Michael Menke J. Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26: 78- 86
18. Portney LG, Watkins MP Foundation of clinical research: applications to practice. Boston: Prentice Hall; 2000