4.2 Article

Preference on the treatments for menorrhagia in Hong Kong Chinese women

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC AND OBSTETRIC INVESTIGATION
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 97-101

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000082577

Keywords

menorrhagia, treatment options; menorrhagia, knowledge; menorrhagia, preferences; menorrhagia, Chinese women; L-norgestrel-releasing intrauterine device

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Menorrhagia is a common gynecological problem and its management options vary from medical to surgical treatment. With the development of the new minimally invasive therapies, there is a paucity of data in the preference and acceptance on these treatment options, especially in the Chinese population. Methods: An anonymous survey using a self-constructed questionnaire was undertaken on women with heavy menstrual bleeding referred to the specialty clinic in a university teaching hospital. The aim was to elicit women's knowledge and preferences for the treatment options for menorrhagia. Results: A total of 200 Chinese women returned their questionnaire with a response rate of 62%. Over 90% of them were unaware of other alternative treatment options for menorrhagia. Eumenorrhea was the desired treatment outcome in 173 (86.5%) women while only 15 (7.5%) and 12 (6%) wished to have oligomenorrhea and amenorrhea respectively. Drug therapy was the preferred first-line treatment in 87% and none preferred to undergo hysterectomy. When the medical treatment failed, 16% of women would not accept any other forms of treatment. For the rest of them, an L-norgestrel-releasing intrauterine device was the preferred option in 53.6%, endometrial ablation in 19%, while only 5.4% would prefer hysterectomy. Conclusion: The awareness of alternative treatment options for menorrhagia in Hong Kong Chinese women is very deficient and eumenorrhea is the desired treatment outcome, rather than oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea. Copyright (C) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available