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

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.) Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001469
Tsung Mou, Julia Shinnick, Samantha DeAndrade, Nicole Roselli, Sarah Andebrhan, Tracey Akanbi, Mary Ackenbom, Charelle Carter-Brooks, Molly Beestrum, Sara Cichowski, Oluwateniola Brown
{"title":"Disparities Research for Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Critique of Literature.","authors":"Tsung Mou, Julia Shinnick, Samantha DeAndrade, Nicole Roselli, Sarah Andebrhan, Tracey Akanbi, Mary Ackenbom, Charelle Carter-Brooks, Molly Beestrum, Sara Cichowski, Oluwateniola Brown","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Understanding the status of pelvic floor disorder (PFD) disparities research will allow the opportunity to advance future pelvic floor equity efforts.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>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 χ 2 test for comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001469","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 χ 2 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.

盆底障碍的差异研究:系统回顾与文献评论》。
重要性:了解盆底功能障碍(PFD)差异研究的现状,将为推动未来的盆底公平工作提供机会:本研究的目的是:(1) 利用差异研究框架的 3 个阶段来描述盆底疾病差异文献的特点;(2) 描述盆底疾病差异研究的特点;(3) 找出关键的知识差距:我们对 1997 年至 2022 年间在 PubMed、Embase、Scopus 或 Cochrane 数据库中收录的有关美国人群中 PFD 不均衡问题的同行评审出版物进行了系统性审查。利用 Kilbourne 等人提出的推进健康差异研究的三相框架(Am J Public Health.2006; 96(12):2113-21),我们将纳入的研究分为检测阶段(识别和测量历史上被边缘化人群的差异)、理解阶段(确定差异的决定因素)或减少阶段(采取干预措施缓解不平等)。所有筛选、编码和质量审查均由至少两名作者独立完成。我们采用了描述性分析和χ2检验进行比较:初步检索发现了 10,178 项研究,其中 123 项被纳入。在纳入的研究中,分别有 98 项(79.7%)、22 项(17.9%)和 3 项(2.4%)研究属于检测、了解和减少阶段研究。最常见的差异调查类别是种族和民族(104 项研究),其中三分之一的研究将种族和民族差异的驱动因素归因于结构性影响。检测阶段研究的发表超过了理解阶段和缩小阶段研究的增长:结论:大多数 PFD 差异研究都集中在确定历史上被边缘化的人群,而没有充分发展到了解和减少阶段。我们建议将 PFD 差异研究推进到检测阶段之后,以促进 PFD 护理中的健康公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信