Factors predicting choice of treatment for menorrhagia in gynaecology outpatient clinics
The aim of this prospective study was to investigate factors predicting choice of treatment for excessive menstrual bleeding, with special emphasis on women's pre-treatment preference. A cohort of women with heavy menstruation and their treatment process in gynaecology outpatient clinics were followed-up for 1Â yr. A total of 383 35-54-yr-old women attending 14 Finnish hospitals participated. They completed a questionnaire before their first outpatient clinic visit, and postal follow-ups were conducted 3 and 12 months later. Information on treatment(s) during the follow-up was taken from medical records and questionnaires. The choice between hysterectomy and conservative treatments, and fulfillment of pre-treatment preference were the main outcome measures. During the 1-yr follow-up, 51% (n=196) of the women underwent hysterectomy and nine were still awaiting it, 12% (n=44) had a minor surgical procedure, 11% (n=41) had oral medication, 9% (n=33) used a hormonal intrauterine system, and nine women changed preventive method. Forty-two women (11%) reported having had no treatment. Data on previous treatments suggested that conservative treatment modalities were under-used. Most of the treatment decisions were made within the first 3-month period. Women's pre-treatment preference was the strongest predictor of chosen treatment. Unemployment, irregular periods and anxiety decreased the probability of a decision for hysterectomy, while pelvic pain and inconvenience due to bleeding increased it. The treatment plan accorded with pre-treatment preference in 72% of the women preferring hysterectomy and in 74% of those preferring a conservative option.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 8 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:8:p:1653-1660. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.