Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025

Anogenital Distance and Perineal Measurements of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse POP Quantification System
Published on: September 20, 2018
Implication of Neighborhood Deprivation Index on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management
Amy Alagh1, Olga Ramm2, Liisa L Lyon3
1From the Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente Oakland, Kaiser Permanente East Bay-University of California San Francisco Urogynecology Fellowship Training Program.
Importance:
Differences in the rate of diagnosis of POP have been described based on race and ethnicity; however, there are few data available on the management and treatment patterns of POP based on multiple factors of socioeconomic status and deprivation.
Objective:
The objective of this study was to investigate the association between pelvic organ prolapse (POP) management and the Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI), a standardized multidimensional measure of socioeconomic status.
Study Design:
This retrospective cohort study included female members of a large integrated health care delivery system who were 18 years or older and had ≥4 years of continuous health care membership from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Demographic, POP diagnosis, urogynecology consultation, and surgical treatment of POP were obtained from the electronic medical record. Neighborhood Deprivation Index data were extrapolated via zip code and were reported in quartiles, with higher quartiles reflecting greater deprivation. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were conducted by NDI.
Results:
Of 1,087,567 patients identified, 34,890 (3.2%) had a POP diagnosis. Q1, the least deprived group, had the highest prevalence of POP (26.3%). Most patients with POP identified as White (57.3%) and represented approximately a third of Q1. Black patients had the lowest rate of POP (5.8%) and comprised almost half of Q4, the most deprived quartile. A total of 13,730 patients (39.4%) had a urogynecology consultation, with rates ranging from 23.6% to 26.4% ( P < 0.01). Less than half (12.8%) of patients with POP underwent surgical treatment, and the relative frequencies of procedure types were similar across NDI quartiles except for obliterative procedures ( P = 0.01). When controlling for age, no clinically significant difference was demonstrated.
Conclusions:
Differences in urogynecology consultation, surgical treatment, and surgical procedure type performed for prolapse across NDI quartiles were not found to be clinically significant. Our findings suggest that equitable evaluation and treatment of prolapse can occur through a membership-based integrated health care system.
More Related Videos
03:30Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
07:41Quantification of Levator Ani Hiatus Enlargement by Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Males and Females with Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Published on: April 17, 2019