| Literature DB >> 23855524 |
Solomon J Lubinga1, Gillian A Levine, Alisa M Jenny, Joseph Ngonzi, Peter Mukasa-Kivunike, Andy Stergachis, Joseph B Babigumira.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the impact of abortion complications on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs has been reported, we found no reports of their impact on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), nor the role of social support in moderating such outcomes. In this study, we performed an assessment of the relationship between abortion complications, HRQoL and social support among women in Uganda.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23855524 PMCID: PMC3718758 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes ISSN: 1477-7525 Impact factor: 3.186
Participant characteristics, Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital, December 2009 – October 2010
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 28.8 (5.7) | 29.0 (5.0) | 28.7 (6.3) | 0.790† |
| Number of children, median (IQR) | 3 (1, 4) | 3 (2, 4) | 2 (0, 4) | 0.002§ |
| 0 | 20 (14.3) | 2 (2.9) | 18 (25.7) | 0.001‡ |
| 1-3 | 68 (48.3) | 36 (52.2) | 32 (45.7) | |
| 4-6 | 32 (23.0) | 22 (31.9) | 10 (14.3) | |
| >6 | 19 (13.7) | 9 (13.0) | 10 (14.3) | |
| Highest education level | | | | |
| No schooling | 21 (15.3) | 12 (17.9) | 9 (12.9) | 0.252‡ |
| Part primary | 29 (21.2) | 14 (20.9) | 15 (21.4) | |
| Completed primary | 24 (17.5) | 7 (10.5) | 17 (24.3) | |
| Part secondary | 27 (19.7) | 13 (19.4) | 14 (20.0) | |
| Completed secondary | 18 (13.1) | 12 (17.9) | 6 (8.6) | |
| More than secondary | 18 (13.1) | 9 (13.4) | 9 (13.8) | |
| Marital status | | | | |
| Currently married | 95 (68.4) | 56 (81.2) | 39 (55.7) | 0.011‡ |
| Never married | 31 (22.3) | 8 (11.6) | 23 (32.9) | |
| Separated/divorced | 11 (7.9) | 4 (5.8) | 7 (10.0) | |
| Widowed | 2 (1.4) | 1 (1.5) | 1 (1.4) | |
| Self-reported HIV status | | | | |
| Negative | 71 (51.8) | 44 (63.8) | 27 (38.6) | 0.004‡ |
| Positive | 18 (13.1) | 10 (14.5) | 8 (11.8) | |
| Don’t know | 48 (35.0) | 15 (21.7) | 33 (47.1) | |
| Employment status | | | | |
| Not working/Subsistence worker | 96 (69.6) | 49 (71.0) | 46 (68.1) | 0.784‡ |
| For money, Part-time | 23 (16.7) | 10 (14.5) | 13 (18.8) | |
| For money, Fulltime | 19 (13.8) | 10 (14.5) | 9 (13.0) | |
| Socioeconomic Index summary | | | | |
| Lowest tertile | 41 (33.3) | 21 (39.6) | 20 (28.6) | 0.012‡ |
| Middle tertile | 41 (33.3) | 10 (18.9) | 31 (44.3) | |
| Highest tertile | 41 (33.3) | 22 (41.5) | 19 (27.1) |
† independent samples t-test.
‡ chi-square test.
§ Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Figure 1Proportions reporting severe problems, some problems or no problems in the dimensions of the EQ-5D.
Figure 2Comparison of EQ-5D utility and EQ-VAS scores, abortion complications group versus routine obstetric care group.
Multivariable linear regression analyses of the association between abortion complications and EQ-5D utility score
| Abortion Complications (versus Routine Obstetric Care) | −0.12 | −0.18, -0.07 | <0.001 | −0.25 | −0.47, -0.02 | 0.031 |
| Age (years) | 0.00 | −0.01, 0.01 | 0.620 | 0.00 | −0.01, 0.01 | 0.705 |
| Social Support Number Score | 0.02 | −0.02, 0.05 | 0.389 | 0.07 | 0.01, 0.12 | 0.017 |
| Social Support Satisfaction Score | 0.03 | 0.00, 0.05 | 0.026 | 0.06 | 0.02, 0.10 | 0.007 |
| Number of Children | 0.00 | −0.02, 0.01 | 0.687 | −0.00 | −0.02, 0.02 | 0.950 |
| Marital status (versus Currently married) | | | | | | |
| Never married | 0.00 | −0.06, 0.07 | 0.919 | 0.01 | −0.05, 0.08 | 0.735 |
| Separated/divorced | −0.09 | −0.17, 0.00 | 0.053 | −0.01 | −0.19, -0.10 | 0.029 |
| Widowed | 0.15 | −0.12, 0.41 | 0.272 | 0.13 | −0.13, 0.39 | 0.313 |
| Self-reported HIV status (versus Negative) | | | | | | |
| Positive | −0.03 | −0.11, 0.05 | 0.501 | −0.02 | −0.10, 0.06 | 0.588 |
| Don’t know | −0.02 | −0.08, 0.04 | 0.464 | −0.02 | −0.08, 0.04 | 0.511 |
| Employment status (versus Not working or Subsistence worker) | | | | | | |
| For money, Part-time | −0.11 | −0.18, -0.04 | 0.004 | −0.11 | −0.18, -0.03 | 0.005 |
| For money, Fulltime | −0.05 | −0.13, 0.03 | 0.194 | −0.04 | −0.12, 0.04 | 0.288 |
| Socioeconomic Index summary (versus Lowest tertile) | | | | | | |
| Middle tertile | −0.06 | −0.13, 0.00 | 0.048 | −0.05 | −0.11, 0.01 | 0.118 |
| Highest tertile | 0.00 | −0.06, 0.06 | 0.980 | −0.00 | −0.06, 0.06 | 0.981 |
| Abortion Complications * SSQN score | | | | −0.09 | −0.15, -0.05 | 0.018 |
| Abortion Complications * SSQS score | | | | 0.05 | 0.00, 0.10 | 0.043 |
| F(14, 91) = 3.68, p = 0.0001 | F(14, 89) = 3.81, p < 0.001 | |||||
† the difference in mean EQ-5D utility score associated with a 1 unit higher value of the independent variable (continuous variables) or when comparing with the reference group (categorical variables).
* adjusted for all other variables shown.
** adjusted for all other variables shown and includes interactions between Abortion Complications and Social Support Questionnaire Number (SSQN) score and Abortion Complications and Social Support Questionnaire Satisfaction (SSQS) score.
Estimated difference (95% CI) in mean EQ-5D utility score for different SSQN and SSQS combinations
| | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Social Support Questionnaire Number (SSQN) Score | 1 | −0.28 | −0.23 | −0.17 | −0.12 | −0.07 | −0.02 |
| (−0.47, -0.09) | (−0.37, -0.08) | (−0.27, -0.07) | (−0.19, -0.05) | (−0.14, 0.00) | (−0.12, 0.08) | ||
| 2 | −0.36 | −0.31 | −0.26 | −0.21 | −0.15 | −0.10 | |
| (−0.58, -0.14) | (−0.48, -0.14) | (−0.38, -0.13) | (−0.29, -0.12) | (−0.21, -0.09) | (−0.17, -0.03) | ||
| 3 | −0.45 | −0.40 | −0.34 | 0.29 | 0.24 | −0.19 | |
| (−0.72, -0.18) | (−0.62, -0.17) | (−0.52, -0.17) | (−0.43, -0.15) | (−0.35, -0.13) | (−0.29, -0.09) | ||
| 4 | −0.53 | −0.48 | −0.43 | −0.38 | −0.32 | −0.27 | |
| (−0.85, -0.21) | (−0.76, -0.20) | (−0.67, -0.19) | (−0.58, -0.17) | (−0.50, -0.15) | (−0.43, -0.11) | ||