Randomized trial examines the effectiveness of the SFI-I questionnaire on sexual function in women with urinary incontinence, indicating its potential value.
Background/Objectives: The Novel Aberdeen Sexual Function Improvement Index (SFI-I) is a simple single-item questionnaire specifically tailored for women with urinary incontinence (UI). The objective of the study was to describe for the first time the Aberdeen SFI-I and to assess its effectiveness in identifying changes in sexual function among women undergoing surgical treatment for SUI. Methods: A secondary analysis of data from the Single Incision Mini-Slings (SIMS) study was undertaken. Pearson correlation analyses were used to examine associations between the SFI-I and changes in the PISQ-IR scores, as well as the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Results: The analysis included 596 women. Among these participants, 118, 101, and 102 completed the SFI-I and the PISQ-IR at 15, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Moderate positive correlations were identified between the SFI-I and PGI-I, ranging from 0.342 to 0.435, indicating that changes in SFI-I and PGI-I tended to occur in the same direction. The inverse correlation between the SFI-I and PISQ-IR, ranging from −0.588 to −0.518, indicates that improvements detected by one instrument are consistently reflected by the other. Diagnostic performance measures showed specificity values between 0.733 and 0.871 and positive predictive values between 0.844 and 0.900, demonstrating that improvement on the SFI-I is a strong indicator of improvement on the PISQ-IR. Conclusions: The newly developed Aberdeen SFI-I is a promising, short, and patient-friendly tool that reliably reflects patients’ perceptions of the impact of SUI surgery on sexual function, which would be specifically valuable where detailed assessment of individual sexual function domains is not required. Further comprehensive psychometric evaluation encompassing reliability, responsiveness, and the determination of clinically meaningful thresholds is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nipa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: