Login to Access Video or Poster Abstract: MP13-01
Sources of Funding: None

Introduction

_x000D_ The World Health Organization approved the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) to evaluate lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). This scale was developed in industrialized populations. However, there are populations around the world where there may be language and comprehension barriers in interpreting the IPSS making it less reliable. The objective of this study is to compare IPSS versus a new Visual Analog Scale (Gea Scale) and establishing which is more understandable for patients_x000D_

Methods

_x000D_ A transversal, descriptive and comparative study was developed in Gea Gonzalez Hospital. Men> 45 years of age with LUTS were evaluated using 2 clinical tools: IPSS and the GEA scale which was developed with the collaboration of both: a graphic designer and a phoniatrist. Both tools were applied to each patient recording sociodemographic variables, understanding, ability to respond for themselves, accuracy and response time. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 22.0)._x000D_

Results

_x000D_ 151 men with LUTS were included, with the following results: age 67 (± 11.09), seven years schooling (± 2.5), 35% unemployed, 8% native american dialect speakers (nahuatl, mazateco and otomi). 63 patients (42%) sought help to answer IPSS questions because of socio-intellectual limitations. In contrast 87% (131) of men completed the GEA Scale while only 16 (10%) asked for help and 3 (1.9%) did not complete it because of visual / intellectual barriers (x2 = 11.68, df = 1, p <0.05). The average time to complete the IPSS was 4.8 minutes compared to 2.6 minutes for the Gea Scale (Student t 19.64, df 118, p <0.05)._x000D_

Conclusions

_x000D_ The use of the Gea Scale to evaluate LUTS may be a useful and innovative adjunct to evaluate LUTS in populations with cultural or academic constraints. The results reported herein suggest that the GEA scale was more useful than the IPSS both in time and qualitative responsiveness in a population of men with intellectual, linguistic, academic or sensory limitations._x000D_

Funding

None