Black and Hispanic Women's Views on LUTS Treatment and a Home-Based Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine facilitators and barriers to treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms among care-seeking Black and Hispanic women and to explore perspectives on "SUPPORT," a self-directed, 8-week, home-based intervention combining education, bladder retraining, pelvic floor muscle training, and cognitive behavior therapy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a qualitative observational study. We recruited a convenience sample of care-seeking women with lower urinary tract symptoms who self-identified as Black race or Hispanic ethnicity and were English or Spanish speaking. We conducted focus groups in the participants' primary language. Two authors analyzed the focus group transcripts using modified grounded theory techniques. RESULTS: We enrolled 27 participants and conducted 7 focus groups. There were 13 non-Hispanic Black and 14 Hispanic participants. The mean ± SD age of the cohort was 49 ± 14 years. Barriers reported by both Black and Hispanic participants included (1) unfamiliarity with treatment options and negative perceptions of procedural treatments, (2) unsatisfactory interactions with the health care team, (3) travel distance for treatment, and (4) resources. Barriers distinct to Spanish-speaking and Black participants were inadequate interpreter services and feeling blocked from accessing care by clinic staff, respectively. Facilitators of treatment included (1) patient-centered clinical environments, (2) streamlined financial assistance services, and (3) shared treatment decision making. Most participants found the SUPPORT intervention concept promising for reducing psychosocial stress related to lower urinary tract symptoms and potentially overcoming various barriers to treatment. CONCLUSION: Participants reported multilevel barriers to lower urinary tract treatments. The concept of the SUPPORT intervention was acceptable to participants and may overcome barriers to treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".