| Literature DB >> 32600323 |
Sara Yvonne Brucker1,2, Leonie-Sophia Pösch1,2, Joachim Graf3,4,5, Alexander N Sokolov1,2,6, Norbert Schaeffeler7, Andrea Kronenthaler8, Hanna Hiltner8, Anke Wagner9, Esther Ueding2, Monika A Rieger9, Dorit Schöller1, Diana Stefanescu1, Kristin Katharina Rall1, Diethelm Wallwiener1, Elisabeth Simoes1,2,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, MRKHS, is a rare (orphan) disease characterized by the aplasia or hypoplasia of the uterus and the vagina. In women's health research, little is known as to how much care provision for patients with MRKHS takes into account their socio-demographic together with their clinical characteristics. This work examines the patients' socio-demographic characteristics, highlighting issues of inappropriate and deficient provision of care.Entities:
Keywords: Health care research; Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome MRKHS; Primary amenorrhea; Rare disease; Socio-demographics; Transition care
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32600323 PMCID: PMC7322870 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-020-00969-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Socio-demographic characteristics
| Socio-demographic attribute | |
|---|---|
| Year of birth | |
| 1990 (1991) [1961; 1997] | |
| Age at time of the invitation letter for enrollment (in years) | |
| 22.46 (21) | |
| 6.07 (37 (15; 52) | |
| Highest level of education at the time of therapy admission a | |
| n=32 (25%) | |
| n=0 (0%) | |
| n=17 (13%) | |
| n=42 (33%) | |
| n=4 (3%) | |
| n=34 (26%) | |
| Partnership status at the time of therapy admission | |
| n=58 (45%) | |
| n=71 (55%) | |
| Residence at the time of therapy admission b | |
| n=46 (36%) | |
| n=83 (64%) | |
aDifference: up to main school (38%) vs. high school leaving certificate (62%): χ2(1)= 6.970, p= 0.0083
bDifference: rural (36%) vs. urban setting (64%): χ2(1)= 9.269, p= 0.0023
Regional specifics from aspects of health care, treatment, and psychosocial burden of disease
| Variable | Rural environment | Urban environment | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of birth | |||
| 1990 (1991) [1961; 1996] | 1990 (1991) [1965; 1997] | 0.728 | |
| Partnership status at the time of therapy admission | 0.534 | ||
| Highest level of education at the time of therapy admission | |||
| 0.147 | |||
| - | |||
| 0.110 | |||
| 0.427 | |||
| - | |||
| 0.922 | |||
| Medical intervention before MRKHS diagnosis (Multiple answers possible) a | |||
| 0.243 | |||
| 0,296 | |||
| 0,870 | |||
| 0,239 | |||
| 0,911 | |||
| Suspected diagnosis of MRKHS at the time of initial presentation at gynecologist (n=116) | 0.646 | ||
| Age at diagnosis (in years) | |||
| 16.17 (16) | 16.23 (16) | 0.687 | |
| 1.51 (7 (14; 21)) | 3.20 (30 (2; 32) | ||
| Time elapsed between onset of first abnormalities and diagnosis (in months) | |||
| 8.96 (2 ) | 12.24 (2) | 0.592 | |
| 30.38 (200 (0; 200)) | 32.94 (200 (0; 200)) | ||
aDifference no intervention vs. (multiple) various interventions: rural, χ2(1)= 9.322, p= 0.0023; urban, χ2(1)= 6.557, p= 0.0
Disease biography: complaints, of anamnesis and health care relevant aspects
| Variable | Manifestation |
|---|---|
| Somatic complaints at the time of therapy admission (Multiple answers possible) | |
| Medical intervention before MRKHS diagnosis (Multiple answers possible) a | |
| Suspected diagnosis of MRKHS at the time of initial presentation at gynecologist (n=116) | |
| Age at diagnosis (in years) | |
| 16.21 (16) | |
| 2.71 (21 (2; 23) | |
| Time elapsed between onset of first abnormalities and diagnosis (in months) | |
| 11.08 (2) | |
| 31.97 (200 (0; 200) | |
| Time elapsed between diagnosis and surgery (in months) | |
| 3.24 (1) | |
| 5.18 (30 (0; 30) | |
aDifference: no intervention vs. (multiple) various interventions: χ2(1)= 9.712, p= 0.0018
Fig. 1History of genital malformations in MRKHS collective and prevalence of genital malformations in the total population