Linking Pelvic Floor Muscle Function Terminology to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

• Published in: Physical therapy Vol. 100; no. 9; pp. 1659 - 1680
• Main Authors: Saltiel, Fernanda, Miranda-Gazzola, Ana Paula Gonçalves, Vitória, Rayane Oliveira, Sampaio, Rosana Ferreira, Figueiredo, Elyonara Mello
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Oxford University Press 01.09.2020
• Subjects: Communication; Jargon; Muscle function; Pelvic floor; Pelvis; Physical therapy; Physiological aspects; Terminology; Therapeutics, Physiological; United States; Muscle Function; Pelvic Floor; Disability and Health; International Classification of Functioning; Urinary Incontinence; Pelvic Floor Disorders
• ISSN: 0031-9023; 1538-6724
• DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa044

Abstract Objective A previous systematic review on pelvic floor muscle function (PFMF) identified a miscellaneity of terms. The lack of consensual terminology might have come from the complexity of neuromusculoskeletal function itself. This study sought to link the previously identified PFMF terms to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) terminology. Methods In this secondary analysis study, 10 linkage rules were applied to link 196 previously identified PFMF terms to the ICF. Two researchers performed the linking process independently. Disagreements were solved by open dialogue with a third researcher. Percentage agreement was computed for main outcome. Results A total of 184 (93.9%) PFMF terms were subsumed into the following 6 ICF terms: tone, involuntary movement reaction, control, coordination, strength, and endurance. The most frequently investigated PFMF was strength (25.5%), followed by involuntary movement reaction (22.9%), endurance (17.2%), control (14.1%), coordination (9.9%), and tone (4.2%). Only 6.2% PFMF could not be linked to ICF terminology. A wide variation of instruments/methods was used to measure PFMF. Vaginal palpation was the only method employed to measure all 6 PFMF. Percentage agreement between raters was 100%. Conclusions Linking PFMF terminology to the ICF was feasible and valid. It allowed the identification of the most investigated PFMF and their measuring methods. ICF terminology to describe PFMF should be used since it may improve communication, data gathering, and the advance in scientific knowledge. Impact Standardized terminology anchored in a theoretical framework is crucial to data gathering, communication, and dissemination of evidence-based practice. PFMF terminology based on ICF can be used to improve data pooling and communication.