Community-based Versus Traditional Research Among Older Minority Women With Urinary Incontinence.Citation: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 28(4):201-206, 2022 Apr 01.PMID: 34387261Institution: MedStar Health Research InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Urinary Incontinence | Female | Humans | Male | Prospective StudiesYear: 2022ISSN:
|Item type||Current library||Collection||Call number||Status||Date due||Barcode|
|Journal Article||MedStar Authors Catalog||Article||34387261||Available||34387261|
CONCLUSION: Compared with traditional research, CBPR yielded higher research retention among older minority women with UI in a clinical study. Copyright (c) American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
METHODS: An ancillary prospective study was conducted within an ongoing pilot randomized clinical trial to treat UI. Participants were recruited using CBPR in collaboration with a local community versus a traditional research approach at an academic center. Inclusion criteria were women 65 years and older and symptomatic UI. The primary outcome was the randomization rate defined as the proportion of women randomized into the randomized clinical trial out of screened participants. Screening and consent rates were also evaluated. Pearson chi2, Fisher exact, and t tests were used. The effect of CBPR on research retention rates was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate research retention of older minority women with urinary incontinence (UI) using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) versus a traditional research approach.
RESULTS: There were 10 and 88 women screened in the CBPR and traditional research groups, respectively. The CBPR participants were Hispanic (n = 10, 100%) and older (78.4 +/- 8.3 years; P < 0.01). Most of the traditional research participants were non-Hispanic Black (n = 55, 62.5%) and younger (71.0 +/- 4.9 years). The CBPR group had higher rates of screening (76.9% vs 40.6%; P = 0.01), consent (80% vs 44.3%; P = 0.045), and randomization (50.0% vs 14.8%; P < 0.01) compared with the traditional research group. Community-based participatory research increased the odds of research retention during screening (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.3-18.2), consent (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.0-25.0), and randomization (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.5-22.7).