Prevalence and Treatment of Postpartum Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Many women present for treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after childbirth. This systematic review describes the efficacy of treatment options for SUI initiated during the 12 months after delivery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing treatment options for SUI initiated in the 12 months after parturition. We searched MEDLINE from inception to February 2019, using Medical Subject Heading terms related to pregnancy and urinary incontinence. Preintervention and postintervention populations were compared using analysis of variance with Fisher least significant difference method used to determine efficacy between groups. Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to categorize quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. RESULTS: We double screened 4548 abstracts, identifying 98 articles for full-text review. Seven studies met the eligibility criteria and were included. Compared with a control group, the 4 interventions identified outperformed the control group (P < 0.001) using Fisher (with effect sizes noted): (1) supervised pelvic floor physical therapy (0.76), (2) electrical stimulation (0.77), (3) home physical therapy (PT) (0.44), and (4) surgery (not applicable). Based on Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment, there was moderate evidence to support PT and electrical stimulation, with insufficient evidence for surgery. There were no significant differences in parity, age, or body mass index via analysis of variance. The overall strength of evidence is poor for the treatment of postpartum SUI; more data are needed to fully evaluate other treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: All identified interventions demonstrated greater improvement for postpartum SUI over no treatment. Supervised PT ± electrostimulation was the most effective nonsurgical intervention.

Behind the Mask: An Exploratory Assessment of Female Surgeons' Experiences of Gender Bias.

Though overt sexism is decreasing, women now experience subtle, often unconscious, gender bias as microaggressions. The authors sought to explore the prevalence and impact of the sexist microaggressions female surgeons experience, using a sequential exploratory mixed methods approach (January 2018-April 2018), to identify opportunities for education and prevention. First, all resident, fellow, and attending female surgeons at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center (UNM HSC) were invited to participate in focus groups conducted by experienced moderators using a semistructured interview guide based on the 7 Sexist Microaggressions Experiences and Stress Scale (Sexist MESS) domains. Qualitative analysis was performed using line-by-line manual coding to identify themes aligned with the Sexist MESS domains as well as other gender bias experiences of female surgeons. Next, a survey was sent to all resident, fellow, and attending female surgeons at the UNM HSC, which included the Sexist MESS questionnaire and questions related to surgeon-specific experiences of gender bias that the authors developed based on major thematic categories from the focus groups.Four focus groups of 23 female surgeons were conducted, revealing 4 themes: exclusion, increased effort, adaptation, and resilience to workplace slights. The survey response rate was 64% (65/101 surgeons). Across Sexist MESS domains, the frequency and severity of microaggressions was higher for trainees than attendings. The variables of non-White race/ethnicity, having children under 18, and fellowship training generally did not demonstrate statistical significance. This exploratory study adds to the growing body of evidence that gender bias in surgery continues and frequently manifests as microaggressions. Trainees reported the highest rates and severity of microaggressions and bias experiences. Further research should investigate how to address microaggressions, the experiences of male surgeons, the perspectives of medical students and groups who were reported as often perpetuating gender bias, and the efficacy of possible interventions.

The Stress Urinary Incontinence in CrossFit (SUCCeSS) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence (UI) in women who participate in CrossFit classes compared with women who participate in non-CrossFit group fitness classes. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional study of women who participate in either CrossFit or non-CrossFit group fitness classes using an online survey. Participants provided demographic information and completed the Incontinence Severity Index and Urinary Distress Inventory. Participants were recruited from local CrossFit and non-CrossFit gyms, online via social media, and an electronic CrossFit Newsletter. Associated comorbidities, exercises associated with UI, and coping mechanisms for urinary leakage were also assessed. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-three women meeting inclusion criteria completed the survey, including 322 CrossFit participants and 101 non-CrossFit participants. We found that CrossFit participants were older than non-CrossFit participants and more likely to self-identify as non-Hispanic white. CrossFit participants more commonly reported UI (84% vs 48%, P = <0.001), higher severity of UI (Urinary Distress Inventory score: 20.8 vs 12.5, P < 0.001), and specifically more stress UI (73% vs 47%, P < 0.001). Weightlifting and jumping movements were the most common exercises associated with UI in CrossFit participants. Age and participation in CrossFit are significant and independent predictors of UI. CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of CrossFit participants reported UI and half of these reported moderate-severe UI, as compared with women who participate in non-CrossFit classes, less than half of whom reported UI with a small minority reporting moderate-severe UI. Exercises most associated with UI were jumping and weightlifting.

Gender Bias Experiences of Female Surgical Trainees.

OBJECTIVE: Medical schools now average approximately 50% female students, yet a disproportionate number of women continue to choose nonsurgical over surgical specialties. Once in training, studies indicate that pervasive gender stereotypes, sexism and harassment negatively affect female surgeons. The aim of this study is to describe female surgeons' experiences with gender bias and microaggressions in the workplace during residency and fellowship training, and understand if differences exist in the experiences of trainees in male-dominant vs female-dominant surgical specialties. DESIGN: A mixed methods approach was used to explore the experiences of female surgical trainees. Participants were recruited from all surgical disciplines at an academic center. Initially, focus groups were used to explore themes that trainees face related to gender bias. A trained moderator conducted all focus groups, which were audio recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analysis of de-identified transcripts was performed to identify emerging themes. We then created an online survey using the validated 44-question Sexist Microaggression Experiences and Stress Scale to assess frequency and psychologic impact of these events with additional questions developed from the focus groups. The survey was sent to all female residents and fellows at one academic institution. SETTING: University of New Mexico Hospital, a tertiary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen female surgical trainees participated in focus groups. Thirty-three female surgical trainees participated in the online survey. RESULTS: Two focus groups including 15 female trainees were conducted, revealing 4 themes: Exclusion, Adaptation, Increased effort, and Development of Resilience Strategies. All participants had experienced gender bias or discrimination during medical school or surgical training. The quantitative survey had a 66% response rate (33/50 female trainees). Significant differences were found in the experience of female trainees in male-dominant vs female-dominant specialties, with those in male-dominant fields often reporting more frequent, severe, and stressful microaggression experiences. When describing how gender bias would affect their future in medicine, trainees in male-dominant specialties were more likely to report that due to gender bias, they "may leave medicine/retire early" (33% vs 6%, p = 0.040) and that they "would not recommend my profession to trainees or family members" (40% vs 6%, p = 0.015)." CONCLUSIONS: Female surgical trainees continue to experience gender bias. A culture of sexism leads to physical and social adaptations to fit into the role of surgeon. Participants expressed significant effort to sustain this level of adaptation, leading to fatigue and creation of resilience mechanisms. The environment in which a trainee operates (male-dominant vs female-dominant) significantly impacts their experience. Those experiencing more bias were less likely to recommend their specialty and reported plans to leave medicine earlier. Culture change across institutions and system-level interventions are necessary to create meaningful and sustainable change that improves the experience of female surgical trainees.

Resident and Program Director's Perceptions of Milestone-Based Feedback in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

INTRODUCTION: In July 2014, US residency programs fully implemented the Next Accreditation System including the use of milestone evaluation and reporting. Currently, there has been little investigation into the result of implementation of this new system. Therefore, this study sought to evaluate perceptions of Obstetrics and Gynecology residents and program directors regarding the use of milestone-based feedback and identify areas of deficiency. METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to US-based Obstetrics and Gynecology residents and program directors regarding milestone-based assessment implementation. RESULTS: Out of 245 program directors, 84 responded to our survey (34.3% response rate). Of responding program directors, most reported that milestone-based feedback was useful (74.7%), fair (83.0%), and accurate (76.5%); however, they found it administratively burdensome (78.1%). Residents felt that milestone-based feedback was useful (62.7%) and fair (70.0%). About 64.3% of residents and 74.7% of program directors stated that milestone-based feedback is an effective tool to track resident progression; however, a sizable minority of both groups believe that it does not capture surgical aptitude. Qualitative analysis of free response comments was largely negative and highlighted the administrative burden and lack of accuracy of milestone-based feedback. CONCLUTION: Overall, both Obstetrics and Gynecology program directors and residents report that milestone-based feedback is useful and fair. Issues of administrative burden, timeliness, evaluation of surgical aptitude, and ability to act on assigned milestone levels were identified. Although this study is limited to one specialty, such issues are likely important to all residents, faculty, and program directors who have implemented the Next Accreditation System requirements.