The Silent Epidemic of Reproductive Morbidity Among Ever Married Women (15–49 Years) in an Urban Area of Delhi

Abstract

Concept of reproductive health has long been discussed and need to focus on reproductive morbidity as a measure of reproductive health has evolved. There is poor reproductive health with neglect of women's own health. Compounded with socio-cultural factors, the result is poor treatment seeking and hence poor quality of life. This community based study was conducted to find out the magnitude, type of reproductive morbidity and treatment seeking behavior for the same. Cross sectional study was conducted in Palam Village among married women aged 15-49 years. 750 women were interviewed by visiting every fifth house through systematic random sampling. Symptomatic women were referred for gynecological examination and investigations. The overall prevalence of Reproductive Morbidity was found to be 46.3 %: Gynaecological morbidity in 31.3 % subjects, obstetric morbidity in 43.4 % of the eligible women and contraceptive induced morbidity in 11.2 % of the ever contraceptive users with 5 % reporting more than one symptom. Problem perception and treatment compliance was poor for subjects with gynecological morbidity as compared with contraceptive and obstetric morbidity respectively. High self-reported obstetric morbidity was observed with good treatment seeking behavior as compared to poor treatment seeking behavior in women with gynaecological morbidity. Contraceptive morbidity was reported by fewer subjects but treatment seeking was good. There is a need to understand the pattern of reporting and health seeking behavior among women suffering from reproductive morbidity. The large magnitude of reproductive morbidity warrants attention and hints the poor quality of MCH care delivered to women.

Gynecological Morbidity among Women in Reproductive Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The retained 18 studies [10,13,15,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] were conducted in different parts of the globe. Almost 33.3% of studies were conducted in urban area [15,24,26,30,33,36], 11% were conducted in both urban and rural areas [27,31].…”

“…Almost 33.3% of studies were conducted in urban area [15,24,26,30,33,36], 11% were conducted in both urban and rural areas [27,31]. From the retained 18 studies, 2 papers contain two outcome variable (one study reports menstrual disorder and reproductive organ prolapse while the other reports reproductive tract infection and pelvic organ prolapse) [23,31].…”

“…The rest 2 studies report menstrual disorder, reproductive tract infection and infertility) [10,15,25,30,33,35,36]. Four studies contain four outcome variables (menstrual disorder, pelvic organ prolapse, reproductive tract infection and infertility) [13,22,26,32].…”

“…Ten studies were eligible for pelvic organ prolapse [10,13,15,22,26,29,31,32,35,36] and contain 8,703 sample size. The prevalence of the pelvic organ prolapse ranges from 0.4%-41%.…”

“…The prevalence of the pelvic organ prolapse ranges from 0.4%-41%. Eight studies were eligible for infertility [13,22,25,26,28,30,32,33] and contain 6,436 sample size. The prevalence of infertility among the paper was ranging from 1%-16%.…”