Disparities Research for Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Critique of Literature

Author:

Mou Tsung1,Shinnick Julia2,DeAndrade Samantha3,Roselli Nicole4,Andebrhan Sarah5,Akanbi Tracey6,Ackenbom Mary7,Carter-Brooks Charelle8,Beestrum Molly9,Cichowski Sara10,Brown Oluwateniola11

Affiliation:

1. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA

2. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI

3. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Harbor UCLA, Torrance, CA

4. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Bellevue Hospital/NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY

5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL

6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA

7. Magee-Women’s Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University, Washington, DC

9. Research and Information Services, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL

10. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR

11. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.

Abstract

Importance Understanding the status of pelvic floor disorder (PFD) disparities research will allow the opportunity to advance future pelvic floor equity efforts. Objectives The aims of the study were to (1) characterize the landscape of PFD disparities literature using the 3 phases of disparities research framework, (2) describe the characteristics of PFD disparities studies, and (3) identify critical knowledge gaps. Study Design We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications addressing disparities in PFDs among U.S. populations from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, or the Cochrane Database indexed between 1997 and 2022. Using the triphasic framework for advancing health disparities research by Kilbourne et al (Am J Public Health. 2006;96(12):2113–21), we categorized the included studies into the detecting phase (identifies and measures disparities in historically marginalized populations), understanding phase (establishes disparity determinants), or reducing phase (conducts interventions to alleviate inequities). All screening, coding, and quality reviews were independently performed by at least 2 authors. We used descriptive analysis and the χ2 test for comparisons. Results The initial search identified 10,178 studies, of which 123 were included. Of the included studies, 98 (79.7%), 22 (17.9%), and 3 (2.4%) studies were detecting, understanding, and reducing phase research, respectively. The most common disparity category investigated was race and ethnicity (104 studies), and one third of these studies attributed drivers of racial and ethnic differences to structural influences. Publications of detecting phase studies outpaced the growth of understanding and reducing phase research. Conclusions Most PFD disparities research focused on identifying historically marginalized populations with inadequate progression to understanding and reducing phases. We recommend progressing PFD disparities research beyond the detecting phase to advance health equity in PFD care.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Reference19 articles.

1. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women;JAMA,2008

2. Barriers and promotors to health service utilization for pelvic floor disorders in the United States: systematic review and meta-analysis of qualitative and quantitative studies;Urogynecology (Phila),2022

3. Advancing health disparities research within the health care system: a conceptual framework;Am J Public Health,2006

4. Disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a systematic review of the literature and modified framework for advancing research toward intervention;Ann Plast Surg,2018

5. Racial disparities in complications and costs after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse;Int Urogynecol J,2022

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3