| Literature DB >> 26664731 |
Joseph R Fitchett1, Surya Bhatta2, Tenzing Y Sherpa2, Bishwo S Malla2, Elizabeth J A Fitchett3, Arlene Samen4, Sibylle Kristensen5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major cause of morbidity in Nepal, particularly affecting women in the rural communities. Women with POP in Nepal may suffer from symptoms for decades. At present, the Government of Nepal advocates surgical intervention but access to surgical care is inadequate. This report evaluated the feasibility of a non-surgical public health programme in rural Nepal, and describes risk factors associated with POP in this setting.Entities:
Keywords: Kegel exercises; Nepal; Pelvic organ prolapse; cystocele; maternal health; primary prevention; rectocele; ring pessary; secondary prevention; uterine prolapse; vault prolapse
Year: 2015 PMID: 26664731 PMCID: PMC4668917 DOI: 10.1177/2054270415608117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JRSM Open ISSN: 2054-2704
Characteristics of women with POP.
| Parameter (years) | Descriptive statistics |
|---|---|
| Age (n = 74) | |
| Mean (sd) | 53 ( ± 17.8) |
| Median (iqr) | 53.5 (39–67) |
| Range | 23–90 |
| Age of marriage (n = 73) | |
| Mean (sd) | 16.4 ( ± 4.8) |
| Median (iqr) | 16 (14–19) |
| Range | 6–32 |
| Age at onset of symptoms (n = 64) | |
| Mean (sd) | 35.3 ( ± 13.6) |
| Median (iqr) | 33.75 (25–42.5) |
| Range | 17–71 |
| Duration of symptoms (n = 64) | |
| Mean (sd) | 17.6 ( ± 16.5) |
| Median (iqr) | 11.5 (4–26) |
| Range | 0.2–60 |
| Parity (n = 74) | |
| Mean (sd) | 5 ( ± 2.7) |
| Median (iqr) | 4 (3–6) |
| Range | 1–13 |
| Parity at onset of symptoms (n = 52) | |
| Mean (sd) | 3.4 ( ± 2.4) |
| Median (iqr) | 2.5 (2–2.5) |
| Range | 1–10 |
n: total number; sd: standard deviation; iqr: interquartile range.
Figure 1.Bar graph showing frequency of POP cases by residential Ward surrounding the Batakachaur and Hatiya birthing centres.
Figure 2.Bar graph showing the positive relationship between age and degree of POP by frequency (top) and proportion (bottom) (n = 72). Two patients were excluded as the stage of POP was unknown.
Figure 3.Bar graph showing primary management according to degree of POP (n = 72). Kegel exercises (n = 25); Ring pessary 2.5-inch (n = 41); Ring pessary 3-inch (n = 6). Two patients were excluded as the stage of POP was unknown.
Effect of potential risk factors and univariate odds ratio of relations between risk factors and severity of POP (stages 1–2 vs. stages 3–4).
| Variables | Degree of POP | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 1–2 | Stage 3–4 | Chi-squared | Univariate analysis | |||
| n (%) | n (%) | OR | 95% CI | |||
| Caste | ||||||
| Brahmin or chhetri | 30 (41.7) | 25 (34.7) | 0.090 | 2.71 | 0.78–9.36 | 0.115 |
| Other | 13 (18.1) | 4 (5.6) | 1 | |||
| Age of marriage | ||||||
| <20 years | 29 (40.8) | 26 (36.6) | 0.037 | 3.76 | 0.96–14.64 | 0.057 |
| ≥20 years | 13 (18.3) | 3 (4.2) | 1 | |||
| Age at screening | ||||||
| ≥55 years | 12 (16.7) | 23 (31.9) | 0.000 | 9.90 | 3.24–30.31 | 0.000 |
| <55 years | 31 (43.1) | 6 (8.3) | 1 | |||
| Age at onset of symptoms | ||||||
| ≥40 years | 6 (9.4) | 14 (21.9) | 0.004 | 5.00 | 1.59–15.75 | 0.006 |
| <40 years | 30 (46.9) | 14 (21.9) | 1 | |||
| Duration of symptoms | ||||||
| ≥5 years | 22 (34.4) | 25 (39.1) | 0.011 | 5.30 | 1.34–20.92 | 0.017 |
| <5 years | 14 (21.9) | 3 (4.7) | 1 | |||
| Parity at screening | ||||||
| 4 + | 27 (37.5) | 21 (29.2) | 0.278 | 1.56 | 0.56–4.32 | 0.397 |
| 1–3 | 16 (22.2) | 8 (11.1) | 1 | |||
| Parity at onset of symptoms | ||||||
| Last child | 20 (40.0) | 12 (24.0) | 0.579 | 0.94 | 0.29–3.09 | 0.923 |
| First-penultimate child | 11 (22.0) | 7 (14.0) | 1 | |||
| Birthing centre | ||||||
| Hatiya | 21 (29.2) | 15 (20.8) | 0.500 | 1.12 | 0.4–42.88 | 0.810 |
| Batakachaur | 22 (30.6) | 14 (19.4) | 1 | |||
| Cystocele | ||||||
| Yes | 24 (34.8) | 12 (17.4) | 0.099 | 0.47 | 0.18–1.24 | 0.129 |
| No | 16 (23.2) | 17 (24.6) | 1 | |||
| Rectocele | ||||||
| Yes | 6 (8.7) | 11 (15.9) | 0.029 | 3.46 | 1.10–10.91 | 0.034 |
| No | 34 (49.3) | 18 (26.1) | 1 | |||
n: total number; %: proportion of total; p: p value; OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals. p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Recommendations by the implementation team and community members.
| Recommendation | Responsible parties | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Outreach to disadvantaged, hard-to-reach and marginalised groups to access the POP programme | MoHP Local health facility |
| 2 | Community-wide promotion of POP awareness using innovative media, such as the local radio. | NGO partners Local health facility |
| 3 | Education initiatives should target both men and adolescent populations to promote a supportive environment for women with POP and address key risk factors. | MoHP/MoE NGO partners |
| 4 | Education initiatives should be integrated into the adolescent curriculum (school education and peer education) | MoHP/MoE NGO partners |
| 5 | Include silicone ring pessaries to the essential supply list for the local health facilities | MoHP Local health facility |
| 6 | Refocus policy from surgical management to preventive measures, such as Kegel’s exercise and ring pessaries | MoHP Donor organisations |
| 7 | Include POP in the Nepal Demographic Health Survey to quantify the burden of disease | MoHP |
| 8 | Regular monitoring and evaluation of the skills of the local health staff and FCHVs and data reporting systems | MoHP NGO partners |
| 9 | Health staff should maintain confidentiality in order to gain women’s trust and not deter them from seeking help | Local health facility Women with POP |
| 10 | Refresher training for health staff and FCHVs to build local capacity | MoHP NGO partners |
MoHP: ministry of health and population; MoE: ministry of education; NGO: nongovernmental organisation; FCHV: female community health volunteer.