Comparison of Urinary Incontinence in Older White and Black Women: A Pilot Study.

This pilot-cross sectional study compared Urinary Incontinence symptom type and severity, and impact of UI on Quality of Life among older White and Black women. Outcome measures included a three-day bladder diary (3dbd), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (IIQ-7), Urinary Distress Inventory Short Form (UDI-6), Medical Epidemiological Social Aspects of Ageing (MESA) questionnaire, and Patient Global Impact of Severity Scale (PGI-S). Participants' characteristics and UI outcomes were analysed with descriptive statistics, Fisher's Exact and Mann-Whitney U tests. Twenty women (10 White, and 10 Black) with mean age of 76.5 (± 4.9 years) participated in the study. There were no significant differences in most UI symptoms based on 3dbd, MESA, PGI-S, UDI-6, and IIQ-7. However, older Black women reported moderate and/or severe impact of UI on their emotional health more frequently (n=7, 70%) compared to White women (n=1, 10%, p=0.02) based on the IIQ-7.

Community-based Versus Traditional Research Among Older Minority Women With Urinary Incontinence.

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. 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 χ2, 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). 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). CONCLUSION: Compared with traditional research, CBPR yielded higher research retention among older minority women with UI in a clinical study.