Measuring gynecological morbidity
The lack of consensus over the most appropriate source to use in assessing reproductive morbidity could, in part, explain the inadequacy of available information on the subject. To outline this situation, gynecological morbidity data collected from two different sources in Beirut, Lebanon, namely, p...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | article |
| Published: |
2003
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10725/4845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07399330390183561 http://libraries.lau.edu.lb/research/laur/terms-of-use/articles.php http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07399330390183561?needAccess=true |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The lack of consensus over the most appropriate source to use in assessing reproductive morbidity could, in part, explain the inadequacy of available information on the subject. To outline this situation, gynecological morbidity data collected from two different sources in Beirut, Lebanon, namely, population-based health interviews (779 ever-married women aged between 15 and 49) and private gynecologists’ clinics (867 women with similar characteristics), are described. Although neither source is likely to represent the true prevalence of gynecological conditions, both agree sufficiently to shed light on the importance of some conditions such as menstrual disturbances (15% in both samples), infections/inflammations (17% in the households sample), and infertility-related concerns (12% in the clinics sample). Interestingly, despite the demographic differences, the most common conditions that the women complained about and the most common diagnoses that the gynecologists offered were similar for both samples. Therefore, given that the logistics in the gynecologists’ clinic survey were easier, we recommend the use of health service data in settings where a representative sample of providers can be identified and service use is high. |
|---|