Dataset Information

Prevalence of Hysterectomy by Self-Reported Disability Among Canadian Women: Findings from a National Cross-Sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Our objective was to investigate differences in prevalence of hysterectomy by self-reported disability status among Canadian women. Materials and Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data from the Canadian Community Health Survey 2012 on 30,170 women aged ≥20 years. Disability was defined as reports of sometimes or often (vs. never) experiencing functional limitations or reduction in daily activities at home, school, or work. Frequency of these limitations was used as a proxy for disability severity. The outcome was self-reported hysterectomy status. Modified Poisson regression was used to quantify the prevalence ratio (PR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for hysterectomy according to any, functional, or activity-limiting disability, after adjustment for household income, employment, education, ethnicity, and marital status. Results were stratified by age at time of data collection, categorized as childbearing (20-44 years), perimenopausal (45-59 years), and postmenopausal (60 years and older). Results: Disability was significantly and consistently associated with higher prevalence of hysterectomy in women. The strength of association was inversely related to age category, and PRs for a given age category were similar across disability types and severity levels. PRs for the association between any disability and hysterectomy were 2.18 (95% CI 1.36-3.50) for childbearing-aged women, 1.48 (95% CI 1.21-1.80) for perimenopausal women, and 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.24) for postmenopausal women. Conclusions: Prevalence of hysterectomy is disproportionately higher among women with self-reported disabilities compared with women without disabilities, with these differences most pronounced in women of childbearing age.

SUBMITTER: Scime NV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8665278 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesPain treatments and their efficacy have been studied extensively. Yet surprisingly little is known about the types of treatments, and combinations of treatments, that community-dwelling adults use to manage pain, as well as how treatment types are associated with individual characteristics and national-level context. To fill this gap, we evaluated self-reported pain treatment types among community-dwelling adults in the United States and Canada. We also assessed how treatment types correlate with individuals' pain levels, sociodemographic characteristics, and country of residence, and identified unique clusters of adults in terms of treatment combinations.Research design and methodsWe used the 2020 "Recovery and Resilience" United States-Canada general online survey with 2 041 U.S. and 2 072 Canadian community-dwelling adults. Respondents selected up to 10 pain treatment options including medication, physical therapy, exercise, etc., and an open-ended item was available for self-report of any additional treatments. Data were analyzed using descriptive, regression-based, and latent class analyses.ResultsOver-the-counter (OTC) medication was reported most frequently (by 55% of respondents, 95% CI 53%-56%), followed by "just living with pain" (41%, 95% CI 40%-43%) and exercise (40%, 95% CI 38%-41%). The modal response (29%) to the open-ended item was cannabis use. Pain was the most salient correlate, predicting a greater frequency of all pain treatments. Country differences were generally small; a notable exception was alcohol use, which was reported twice as often among U.S. versus Canadian adults. Individuals were grouped into 5 distinct clusters: 2 groups relied predominantly on medication (prescription or OTC), another favored exercise and other self-care approaches, one included adults "just living with" pain, and the cluster with the highest pain levels employed all modalities heavily.Discussion and implicationsOur findings provide new insights into recent pain treatment strategies among North American adults and identify population subgroups with potentially unmet need for more adaptive and effective pain management.

Project description:BackgroundThe recent World Report on Disability highlighted violence as a leading cause of morbidity among disabled people. However, we know little about the extent to which people with disability experience different violence types, and associated health/economic costs. The recent introduction of disability measures into the England&Wales victimization survey provided an opportunity to address this gap.Methods and findingsAnalysis of the 2009/10 British Crime Survey (BCS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 44,398 adults living in residential households in England&Wales. Using multivariate logistic regression, we estimated the relative odds of being a victim of past-year violence (physical/sexual domestic or non-domestic violence) in people with disability compared to those without, after adjusting for socio-demographics, behavioural and area confounders. 1256/44398(2.4%) participants had one or more disabilities including mental illness ('mental illness') and 7781(13.9%) had one or more disabilities excluding mental illness ('non-mental disability'). Compared with the non-disabled, those with mental illness had adjusted relative odds (aOR) of 3.0(95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3-3.8) and those with non-mental disability had aOR of 1.8(95% CI: 1.5-2.2) of being a victim of past-year violence (with similar relative odds for domestic and non-domestic violence). Disabled victims were more likely to suffer mental ill health as a result of violence than non-disabled victims. The proportion of violence that could be attributed to the independent effect of disability in the general population was 7.5%(CI 5.7-9.3%), at an estimated cost of £1.51 billion. The main study limitation is the exclusion of institutionalised people with disability.ConclusionsPeople with disability are at increased risk of being victims of domestic and non-domestic violence, and of suffering mental ill health when victimized. The related public health and economic burden calls for an urgent assessment of the causes of this violence, and national policies on violence prevention in this vulnerable group.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Web-based self-report surveying has increased in popularity, as it can rapidly yield large samples at a low cost. Despite this increase in popularity, in the area of youth mental health, there is a distinct lack of research comparing the results of Web-based self-report surveys with the more traditional and widely accepted computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). OBJECTIVE:The Second Australian Young and Well National Survey 2014 sought to compare differences in respondent response patterns using matched items on CATI versus a Web-based self-report survey. The aim of this study was to examine whether responses varied as a result of item sensitivity, that is, the item's susceptibility to exaggeration on underreporting and to assess whether certain subgroups demonstrated this effect to a greater extent. METHODS:A subsample of young people aged 16 to 25 years (N=101), recruited through the Second Australian Young and Well National Survey 2014, completed the identical items on two occasions: via CATI and via Web-based self-report survey. Respondents also rated perceived item sensitivity. RESULTS:When comparing CATI with the Web-based self-report survey, a Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis showed that respondents answered 14 of the 42 matched items in a significantly different way. Significant variation in responses (CATI vs Web-based) was more frequent if the item was also rated by the respondents as highly sensitive in nature. Specifically, 63% (5/8) of the high sensitivity items, 43% (3/7) of the neutral sensitivity items, and 0% (0/4) of the low sensitivity items were answered in a significantly different manner by respondents when comparing their matched CATI and Web-based question responses. The items that were perceived as highly sensitive by respondents and demonstrated response variability included the following: sexting activities, body image concerns, experience of diagnosis, and suicidal ideation. For high sensitivity items, a regression analysis showed respondents who were male (beta=-.19, P=.048) or who were not in employment, education, or training (NEET; beta=-.32, P=.001) were significantly more likely to provide different responses on matched items when responding in the CATI as compared with the Web-based self-report survey. The Web-based self-report survey, however, demonstrated some evidence of avidity and attrition bias. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with CATI, Web-based self-report surveys are highly cost-effective and had higher rates of self-disclosure on sensitive items, particularly for respondents who identify as male and NEET. A drawback to Web-based surveying methodologies, however, includes the limited control over avidity bias and the greater incidence of attrition bias. These findings have important implications for further development of survey methods in the area of health and well-being, especially when considering research topics (in this case diagnosis, suicidal ideation, sexting, and body image) and groups that are being recruited (young people, males, and NEET).

Dataset Information

Prevalence of Hysterectomy by Self-Reported Disability Among Canadian Women: Findings from a National Cross-Sectional Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets