Missed Opportunities: A Mixed-Methods Assessment of Disparities in Treatment for Fecal Incontinence.

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.) Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001619
Vienne Seitz, Jed Calata, Ling Mei, Emily R W Davidson
{"title":"Missed Opportunities: A Mixed-Methods Assessment of Disparities in Treatment for Fecal Incontinence.","authors":"Vienne Seitz, Jed Calata, Ling Mei, Emily R W Davidson","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Previous work identified racial disparities in access to fecal incontinence (FI) treatments. However, less is known about patient perspectives of these barriers.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study assessed differences in FI symptom severity and treatment utilization between Black and White patients.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This mixed-methods assessment studied adult non-Hispanic Black and White women treated for FI who either did not respond to medical therapy nor received sacral neuromodulation or did not follow up after medical therapy. Structured interviews queried patients about treatments offered and symptom severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 118 patients in the retrospective evaluation, 59 (50%, 24 Black and 35 White) were interviewed. Black patients were more likely than White patients to report occasional, weekly, or daily solid and stool incontinence (75.0% vs 48.6%, P = 0.042; 87.5% vs 51.4%, P = 0.004, respectively) and flatal incontinence (83.3% vs 62.9%, P = 0.088).Of those prescribed fiber supplements and antidiarrheal medications, Black patients were less likely to report symptom improvement (25.0% vs 70.0%, P = 0.013; 57.1% vs 87.5%, P = 0.092, respectively, for each medication type) and ongoing regimen adherence (25.0% vs 63.3%, P = 0.013; 28.6% vs 87.5%, P = 0.035, respectively).Black patients were more likely to report impairment in daily functioning secondary to FI (83.3% vs 57.1%, P = 0.034) and were more likely to seek a follow-up visit with a health care professional that performs sacral neuromodulation (79.2% vs 28.6%, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Black patients were more likely to have severe symptoms and poorer treatment outcomes and desire future follow-up, highlighting the importance of addressing racial differences in patient preferences in FI management strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","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.0000000000001619","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Previous work identified racial disparities in access to fecal incontinence (FI) treatments. However, less is known about patient perspectives of these barriers.

Objectives: This study assessed differences in FI symptom severity and treatment utilization between Black and White patients.

Study design: This mixed-methods assessment studied adult non-Hispanic Black and White women treated for FI who either did not respond to medical therapy nor received sacral neuromodulation or did not follow up after medical therapy. Structured interviews queried patients about treatments offered and symptom severity.

Results: Of the 118 patients in the retrospective evaluation, 59 (50%, 24 Black and 35 White) were interviewed. Black patients were more likely than White patients to report occasional, weekly, or daily solid and stool incontinence (75.0% vs 48.6%, P = 0.042; 87.5% vs 51.4%, P = 0.004, respectively) and flatal incontinence (83.3% vs 62.9%, P = 0.088).Of those prescribed fiber supplements and antidiarrheal medications, Black patients were less likely to report symptom improvement (25.0% vs 70.0%, P = 0.013; 57.1% vs 87.5%, P = 0.092, respectively, for each medication type) and ongoing regimen adherence (25.0% vs 63.3%, P = 0.013; 28.6% vs 87.5%, P = 0.035, respectively).Black patients were more likely to report impairment in daily functioning secondary to FI (83.3% vs 57.1%, P = 0.034) and were more likely to seek a follow-up visit with a health care professional that performs sacral neuromodulation (79.2% vs 28.6%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Black patients were more likely to have severe symptoms and poorer treatment outcomes and desire future follow-up, highlighting the importance of addressing racial differences in patient preferences in FI management strategies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
错失的机会:粪便失禁治疗差异的混合方法评估。
重要性:先前的工作确定了在获得大便失禁(FI)治疗方面的种族差异。然而,对于患者对这些障碍的看法却知之甚少。目的:本研究评估黑人和白人患者FI症状严重程度和治疗利用的差异。研究设计:这项混合方法评估研究了接受FI治疗的非西班牙裔黑人和白人成年妇女,她们要么对药物治疗没有反应,要么接受骶骨神经调节,要么在药物治疗后没有随访。结构化访谈询问患者提供的治疗和症状严重程度。结果:回顾性评价118例患者,访谈59例(50%,黑人24例,白人35例)。黑人患者比白人患者更有可能报告偶尔、每周或每天的固体和大便失禁(75.0% vs 48.6%, P = 0.042;87.5% vs 51.4%, P = 0.004)和尿失禁(83.3% vs 62.9%, P = 0.088)。在那些处方纤维补充剂和止泻药中,黑人患者报告症状改善的可能性较小(25.0% vs 70.0%, P = 0.013;57.1% vs 87.5%, P = 0.092)和持续方案依从性(25.0% vs 63.3%, P = 0.013;28.6% vs 87.5%, P = 0.035)。黑人患者更有可能报告继发于FI的日常功能障碍(83.3%对57.1%,P = 0.034),更有可能寻求进行骶骨神经调节的医疗保健专业人员的随访(79.2%对28.6%,P < 0.001)。结论:黑人患者更有可能出现严重症状和较差的治疗结果,并希望未来随访,这突出了在FI管理策略中解决患者偏好的种族差异的重要性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adverse Events Associated With Female External Urinary Collection Devices. Tamsulosin to Prevent Urinary Retention After Vaginal Urogynecologic Surgery. The Effect of Concomitant Hysterectomy Route on Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Outcomes. Urogynecology Research Is Underrepresented in Top Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals. Treatment Crossover Following Advanced Therapy for Overactive Bladder Syndrome.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1