Marcella G Willis-Gray1, Juan S Sandoval, Jean Maynor, Hayden B Bosworth, Nazema Y Siddiqui. 1. From the *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center; †Center of Excellence for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and ‡Departments of Medicine, Psychiatry, and School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared barriers to urinary incontinence (UI) healthcare seeking between white, black, and Latina women. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study using a convenience sample of white, black, and Latina women. Women completed the Barriers to Incontinence Care Seeking Questionnaire (BICS-Q), the Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument (I-QOL), the Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis, and the Incontinence Severity Index (ISI). The primary objective was to assess barriers to UI care seeking among groups, as measured by the BICS-Q. Secondary objectives were to assess factors associated with barriers to incontinence care and to compare specific barriers using BICS-Q subscale scores. Regression analyses were used to further assess for differences among groups while adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: We included a total of 93 subjects, including 30 white, 33 black, and 30 Latina women. Mean I-QOL, Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis, and ISI scores were not significantly different among our 3 groups. Barriers, based on BICS-Q scores, were lowest in white women and higher in blacks and Latinas (2.9 vs 7.3 vs 10.9, respectively; P < 0.001). When adjusting for potential confounders such as age, income, education, presence of UI, ISI score, and I-QOL score, Latinas continued to demonstrate higher barriers compared with white or black women (β = 7.4; 95% CI, 2.2-12.7; P = 0.006). There were no significant differences between black women compared with other groups in the adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Latinas experience more barriers to UI healthcare seeking compared with white and black women.
OBJECTIVE: We compared barriers to urinary incontinence (UI) healthcare seeking between white, black, and Latina women. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study using a convenience sample of white, black, and Latina women. Women completed the Barriers to Incontinence Care Seeking Questionnaire (BICS-Q), the Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument (I-QOL), the Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis, and the Incontinence Severity Index (ISI). The primary objective was to assess barriers to UI care seeking among groups, as measured by the BICS-Q. Secondary objectives were to assess factors associated with barriers to incontinence care and to compare specific barriers using BICS-Q subscale scores. Regression analyses were used to further assess for differences among groups while adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: We included a total of 93 subjects, including 30 white, 33 black, and 30 Latina women. Mean I-QOL, Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis, and ISI scores were not significantly different among our 3 groups. Barriers, based on BICS-Q scores, were lowest in white women and higher in blacks and Latinas (2.9 vs 7.3 vs 10.9, respectively; P < 0.001). When adjusting for potential confounders such as age, income, education, presence of UI, ISI score, and I-QOL score, Latinas continued to demonstrate higher barriers compared with white or black women (β = 7.4; 95% CI, 2.2-12.7; P = 0.006). There were no significant differences between black women compared with other groups in the adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Latinas experience more barriers to UI healthcare seeking compared with white and black women.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mitchell B Berger; Divya A Patel; Janis M Miller; John O Delancey; Dee E Fenner Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: David H Thom; Stephen K van den Eeden; Arona I Ragins; Christina Wassel-Fyr; Eric Vittinghof; Leslee L Subak; Jeanette S Brown Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Babatunde O Adedokun; Imran O Morhason-Bello; Oladosu A Ojengbede; Ngozi S Okonkwo; Charles Kolade Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Veronica T Mallett; Anna M Jezari; Thelma Carrillo; Sheralyn Sanchez; Zuber D Mulla Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Nazema Y Siddiqui; Natalie Ammarell; Jennifer M Wu; Juan S Sandoval; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Jenna M Norton; Jennifer L Dodson; Diane K Newman; Rebecca G Rogers; Andrea D Fairman; Helen L Coons; Robert A Star; Tamara G Bavendam Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Keila S Muñiz; Koraima Cedeño; Kathryn A Carson; Prerna R Pandya; Jacqueline Kikuchi; Danielle Patterson; Joan Blomquist; Stephanie Jacobs; Grace Chen Chi Chiung Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 2.091