Back

Bowel Irrigation Questionnaire Development of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure to assess the user experience of Transanal Irrigation

Farrow, E.; Balachandran, R.; Embleton, R.; Krogh, K.; Vollebregt, P. F.; Cornish, J.; Christensen, P.

2026-07-17 surgery
10.64898/2026.07.16.26358225 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aims To develop the Bowel Irrigation Questionnaire (BIQ), a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) designed to assess the user experience of transanal irrigation (TAI). Methods Statements were generated through literature review and qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and product users. Statements were rated on a 6-point content validity index scale through an international three-round online Delphi survey by 20 expert panel members. Consensus attainment was defined based on percentage agreement, statements which did not meet consensus were discussed at a final international online consensus meeting. The content validity of the PREM was evaluated through cognitive interviews and the Questionnaire on Questionnaires (QQ-10). Reliability was assessed using a test-retest design, where users completed the BIQ on two occasions one week apart. Results 215 statements were generated from 9 multi-disciplinary qualitative interviews and literature review. Statements were refined to reduce repetition and ensure clarity. 73 statements grouped into 11 domains were reviewed through the Delphi survey. Following the Delphi survey and clinical consensus meeting, the preliminary BIQ consisted of 15 items. Six cognitive interviews were conducted, resulting in a finalised BIQ of 16 items. 32 product users completed both the QQ-10 and test-retest study, the results of which demonstrated good content validity and temporal stability respectively. Conclusions The Bowel Irrigation Questionnaire is a novel PREM designed to assess the user experience of TAI in both clinical and research settings. The instrument demonstrates good validity, acceptability and temporal stability, supporting its use as a reliable measure of patient experience.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
27.9%
2
JMIR Research Protocols
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.3%
4
Systematic Reviews
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Value in Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.1%
6
Pain
78 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.8%
7
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 50%
2.0%
9
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
10
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
11
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
The Journal of Pediatrics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
13
Neurogastroenterology & Motility
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
14
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
15
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
16
BMC Medical Education
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
17
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
18
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
19
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.4%
20
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
21
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
22
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
Journal of Affective Disorders
92 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
26
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
27
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%