Objective The aim of the study was to compare the racial/ethnic representation in studies supporting the 2019 American Urological Association/Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction overactive bladder diagnosis and treatment guideline to the racial/ethnic distribution of the U.S. population. Methods We analyzed the race and ethnicity of participants in the articles cited in the 2019 American Urological Association/Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction nonneurogenic overactive bladder guidelines. The primary outcome was the representation quotient, the ratio of the proportion of a racial/ethnic group in the guideline studies relative to the estimated proportion of that group in the U.S. population. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson χ2 test. Results There were 387 studies included, 35% of which reported participants’ race. Of the studies that included U.S. participants, 111 (61%) reported race and 44 (24%) reported Hispanic ethnicity. The representation quotient for White and Asian participants was 1.06 and 1.62, indicating overrepresentation relative to the U.S. population, respectively. The representation quotient for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native participants was 0.85, 0.56, and 0.02, respectively, indicating underrepresentation for these groups. Evaluation of the representation quotients over time revealed no meaningful change in representation from 1990 to 2019 for any racial/ethnic group. Conclusions The evidence based on the overactive bladder guidelines is derived from studies that frequently failed to report race/ethnicity and is not reflective of the U.S. population. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native participants that are underrepresented in U.S.-based studies, highlighting the need for more inclusive recruitment strategies in overactive bladder research.

Importance We need a systematic approach to understanding health service utilization behavior in women with pelvic floor symptoms in the United States.Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of pelvic floor care utilization and identify its barriers and promotors using Andersen's model, which theorizes care-seeking behavior with individual care needs, resources, predispositions, and macrostructures. Design This was a systematic search of studies on care-seeking patterns in women with symptomatic pelvic floor disorders, which included pelvic organ prolapse, lower urinary tract symptoms, and anal incontinence. We then performed meta-analyses with random-effects models and descriptive analysis to determine utilization rate and the impact of each identified determinant. Results The pooled utilization rate was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-45%). Determinants were identified across all domains except at the macrostructure level. For individual care needs, increased symptom severity or duration and a history of depression (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51) were associated with higher utilization. In the resources domain, having social support and established primary/secondary care were promotors, whereas higher income and employed status trended as barriers. Under predispositions, age ≥50years (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.60), and pelvic floor awareness were associated with utilization, whereas Asian (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.72) and Black (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.55-1.08) women as well as women experiencing fear, misinformation, or normalization of pelvic floor disorders had decreased utilization. Conclusions This review identified a low utilization rate for pelvic floor care and revealed multilayered, actionable items affecting care-seeking behavior. It highlights the need for more inclusive and multifaceted approaches in future pelvic floor disparity research and equity interventions.

No abstract

Aims To determine the differences in pooled prevalence rates of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) across different US racial/ethnic groups using existing screening‐based epidemiologic studies. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus was conducted to retrieve eligible studies. We included studies that identified POP by either physical exam or questionnaire, conducted in non‐gynecologic care‐seeking settings, and had a representative sample of US community‐dwelling women from more than one racial/ethnic group with prevalence rates reported for each population. Meta‐analysis was performed with the pooled estimates calculated, and χ 2 tests were performed to examine the associations between race and POP prevalence. Results Of the 2604 studies reviewed, 5 were included. One study used physical exam findings while others used questionnaires to identify POP. All but one study demonstrated statistically significant differences in POP prevalence rates based on race/ethnicity. The overall pooled POP prevalence rates were determined for each racial/ethnic group—White women: 10.76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.30%–11.22%); Hispanic women: 6.55% (95% CI, 5.83%–7.28%); Black women: 3.80% (95% CI, 3.22%–4.38%); and Asian American women: 3.40% (95% CI, 2.09%–4.71%). There was a significant difference in the pooled prevalence rates among these four racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.01). Conclusions Our study found that White women had the highest pooled POP prevalence rate overall, while Hispanic women had the highest pooled prevalence among minority women. Additionally, American Indians and Pacific Islanders were absent from the current prolapse epidemiologic literature.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives The primary objective of the study was to evaluate patients’ attitudes toward the postponement of their scheduled procedures for pelvic floor disorders (PFD) because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary objectives were to identify patients who were upset with the postponement of their PFD procedures and to identify factors that are associated with being upset because of the delay in care. Methods This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study of women from a single urban, academic practice using a novel questionnaire. The study cohort included women whose PFD surgeries or office procedures were postponed between March 17 and April 30, 2020. Results Ninety-eight women had surgeries postponed; 68 (70%) responded to our questionnaire. Nearly half of the respondents (32/68, 47.1%) were upset about their procedures being postponed. Upset patients reported a greater impact of PFD symptoms on their mood than those who were not upset (P=0.002). Those who were upset were also more likely to report feelings of isolation (P=0.006), fear that their PFD would worsen because of delayed care (P < 0.001), and anxiety over surgery postponement (P < 0.001) than those who were not upset about the delays. When controlling for anxiety, social isolation, and impact of PFD symptom, anxiety (adjusted odds ratio = 15.7; 95% confidence interval = 3.7–66.6) and feeling of isolation (adjusted odds ratio = 9.7; 95% confidence interval = 1.5–63.7) remained associated with increased odds of being upset because of procedure delays. Conclusions Half of women whose pelvic reconstructive procedures were postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic were upset because of the delay in care, especially those who are emotionally and socially vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic.

(Abstracted from Urogynecology 2022;28:574–581)Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs), such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP), anal incontinence (AI), and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs), affect approximately 1 in 4 women in the United States. Many women endure PFD symptoms without seeking care.