From the Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI.
Urogynecology (Phila). 2024 Sep 1;30(9):758-764. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001469. Epub 2024 Mar 7.
Understanding the status of pelvic floor disorder (PFD) disparities research will allow the opportunity to advance future pelvic floor equity efforts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
了解盆底功能障碍 (PFD) 差异研究的现状将为推进未来的盆底公平工作提供机会。
本研究的目的是:(1) 使用差异研究框架的 3 个阶段描述 PFD 差异文献的概况,(2) 描述 PFD 差异研究的特征,(3) 确定关键知识差距。
我们对 1997 年至 2022 年期间在 PubMed、Embase、Scopus 或 Cochrane 数据库中索引的美国人群中 PFD 差异的同行评审出版物进行了系统回顾。我们使用 Kilbourne 等人提出的推进健康差异研究的三阶段框架(Am J Public Health. 2006;96(12):2113-21),将纳入的研究分为检测阶段(识别和衡量历史上边缘化人群中的差异)、理解阶段(确定差异决定因素)或减少阶段(开展干预措施以减轻不平等)。所有的筛选、编码和质量审查都是由至少 2 位作者独立进行的。我们使用描述性分析和 χ 2 检验进行比较。
最初的搜索确定了 10178 项研究,其中 123 项被纳入。在纳入的研究中,98 项(79.7%)、22 项(17.9%)和 3 项(2.4%)分别为检测、理解和减少阶段的研究。研究最多的差异类别是种族和民族(104 项),其中三分之一的研究归因于结构性影响导致了种族和民族差异。检测阶段研究的出版物数量超过了理解和减少阶段研究的增长。
大多数 PFD 差异研究都集中在识别历史上边缘化的人群,而在理解和减少阶段的进展不足。我们建议将 PFD 差异研究推进到检测阶段之外,以推进 PFD 护理中的健康公平。