Background: Endometriosis is a chronic gynecological condition impacting 1 in 10 women of reproductive age. Research with adult women documents high levels of disruptions in academic, professional, family, and social lives due to pain. Less research has been conducted with college-aged populations. Although stigma has been noted as a key factor in contributing to diagnostic delay, little research has focused on examining stigma, endometriosis symptoms, and disruptions. This study aims at documenting the frequency of social, academic, and work disruptions experienced by college-aged women due to symptoms suggestive of endometriosis and at examining the relationship between disruptions and anticipated stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in April 2019 among a nationally drawn sample ( N = 468) of undergraduate women to assess symptoms suggestive of endometriosis, disruptions to daily life, and stigma experiences. Results: High levels of life disruptions due to symptoms suggestive of endometriosis were documented (88% any disruption, 82.7% social, 58.8% academic, and 34.4% work). Adjusted analysis (accounting for demographics and symptoms) showed that any disruptions, social disruptions, academic disruptions, or work disruptions were significantly associated with a higher mean anticipated stigma score ( β = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15–0.59; β = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13–0.51; β = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.17–0.46; β = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.23–0.54; respectively). Conclusions: Many young women experience disruptions that affect their academic, work, and social lives. These disruptions due to symptoms suggestive of endometriosis also impact stigma experiences. More interventions tailored to address stigma and minimize disruptions are needed in public health.
ObjectiveTo examine whether disabled women are more likely to report accepting attitudes towards intimate partner violence (IPV) than non‐disabled women, and whether male partners of disabled women are more likely to accept IPV than male partners of non‐disabled women.MethodsSecondary analysis of nationally representative cross‐sectional data from the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) in nine countries. Logistic regression examined the relationship between (1) women's disability and IPV acceptance (n = 114 695) and (2) women's disability and their male partners' IPV acceptance (n = 20 566); pooled and country‐specific estimates were calculated.ResultsIPV acceptance ranged from 5% to 80% among women and from 5% to 56% among male partners. Overall, disabled women were more accepting of IPV than non‐disabled women (pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.20), with country‐specific aOR ranging from 1.05 to 1.63. Overall, disabled women's male partners had higher likelihood of IPV acceptance than non‐disabled women's partners (pooled aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00–1.28).; country‐specific estimates varied (aOR range from 0.56 to 1.40).ConclusionDisabled women and their male partners had higher IPV acceptance compared with non‐disabled women and their male partners. More research is needed to better understand this association, including disability‐associated discrimination. Findings underscore the importance of more research with disabled women and their partners to address IPV.
IntroductionImmigrant and forcibly displaced women and girls are disproportionately impacted by the harmful health consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the USA. Economic and Social Empowerment (EA$E), a women’s protection and empowerment intervention, has shown promising reductions in IPV and gender inequities among forcibly displaced populations (FDPs) in low-income and middle-income countries. However, research on the integration of gender equity interventions into economic empowerment programming for FDPs within the USA is lacking. Additionally, there is growing interest in integrating gender equity programmes among US-based refugee resettlement organisations, including the International Rescue Committee (IRC). We describe our study protocol for examining the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of EA$E for use with US-based FDPs, and recommendations for adaptation.Methods and analysisThis is a convergent parallel study to guide the adaptation of EA$E for use with US-based FDPs. Mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) will be used for the adaptation research. Quantitative data will consist of brief surveys, and qualitative data will consist of focus group discussions (FGDs). Our research will be guided by the ‘administration’ phase of the ADAPT-ITT framework, which entails pretesting the intervention with the new target audience and implementation context to examine acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility to receive feedback to inform modifications of the original intervention. This is done via theatre testing, an innovative approach to pretesting that allows the new target audience to experience the intervention and provide feedback. We will conduct FGDs with IRC staff (n=4, total of 24 participants) and refugee clients (n=8, total of 48 participants, women and men, French and English speaking).Ethics and disseminationThe study has received approval from the George Mason University Human Subjects Committee (#1686712–7) and IRC (via reliance agreement). Results will be made available to refugee resettlement organisations, policymakers, funders and other researchers. This study has been registered in Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SZDVY)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.