Hysterectomy in women with disabilities: a systematic review.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jayati Khattar, Carmela Melina Albanese, Kathryn Barrett, Natalie V Scime, Hilary K Brown
{"title":"Hysterectomy in women with disabilities: a systematic review.","authors":"Jayati Khattar, Carmela Melina Albanese, Kathryn Barrett, Natalie V Scime, Hilary K Brown","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaf020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hysterectomy is the most frequently performed nonobstetric surgery in women. Women with disabilities face barriers to reproductive health care, and little is known about their hysterectomy risk. The objective of this systematic review was to compare hysterectomy risk among women with and without disabilities. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL Plus databases from inception to May 2024 using validated search strategies. We included peer-reviewed observational studies that compared hysterectomy in women with physical, sensory, cognitive, and intellectual or developmental disabilities with those without disabilities. Study characteristics and data were extracted using a standardized form; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment. Study findings were summarized narratively following Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. The search yielded 3686 unique records, of which 5 met our criteria. These included 1 retrospective cohort and 4 cross-sectional studies, which were conducted in the United States (n = 3), Canada (n = 1), and South Korea (n = 1), and ranged in size from 881 to 42 842 participants. Evidence from 4 studies indicated hysterectomy frequency was higher among women with disabilities (range: 6.1% to 22.8%) compared with those without disabilities (range: 2.2% to 18.6%). Three studies suggested the disparity in hysterectomy was greatest among premenopausal women. Quality assessment scores on the NOS ranged from 0 to 8 (median, 3), with limitations mostly related to measurement of the exposure and outcome. The limited research on this topic points to the need for more studies on hysterectomy among women with disabilities, given historical reproductive injustices faced by this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12858371/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxaf020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hysterectomy is the most frequently performed nonobstetric surgery in women. Women with disabilities face barriers to reproductive health care, and little is known about their hysterectomy risk. The objective of this systematic review was to compare hysterectomy risk among women with and without disabilities. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL Plus databases from inception to May 2024 using validated search strategies. We included peer-reviewed observational studies that compared hysterectomy in women with physical, sensory, cognitive, and intellectual or developmental disabilities with those without disabilities. Study characteristics and data were extracted using a standardized form; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment. Study findings were summarized narratively following Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. The search yielded 3686 unique records, of which 5 met our criteria. These included 1 retrospective cohort and 4 cross-sectional studies, which were conducted in the United States (n = 3), Canada (n = 1), and South Korea (n = 1), and ranged in size from 881 to 42 842 participants. Evidence from 4 studies indicated hysterectomy frequency was higher among women with disabilities (range: 6.1% to 22.8%) compared with those without disabilities (range: 2.2% to 18.6%). Three studies suggested the disparity in hysterectomy was greatest among premenopausal women. Quality assessment scores on the NOS ranged from 0 to 8 (median, 3), with limitations mostly related to measurement of the exposure and outcome. The limited research on this topic points to the need for more studies on hysterectomy among women with disabilities, given historical reproductive injustices faced by this population.

Abstract Image

残疾妇女子宫切除术:一项系统综述。
子宫切除术是女性最常进行的非产科手术。虽然残疾妇女在生殖保健方面面临障碍,但对其子宫切除术的风险知之甚少。本系统综述的目的是比较有残疾和无残疾妇女子宫切除术的风险。我们使用经过验证的搜索策略对MEDLINE、Embase、PsycInfo和CINAHL Plus进行了从成立到2024年5月的搜索。我们纳入了同行评审的观察性研究,这些研究比较了有身体、感觉、认知、智力或发育障碍的妇女和无残疾妇女的子宫切除术。采用标准化表格提取研究特征和数据,并采用纽卡斯尔渥太华量表(NOS)进行质量评估。按照无荟萃分析的综合指南对研究结果进行叙述性总结。搜索产生了3686条唯一记录,其中5条符合我们的标准。研究是横断面研究(n=4)和回顾性队列研究(n=1),分别在美国(n=3)、加拿大(n=1)和韩国(n=1)进行,参与者从881到42,842人不等。来自4项研究的证据表明,与非残疾妇女(范围:2.2%至18.6%)相比,残疾妇女(范围:6.1%至22.8%)的子宫切除术频率更高。三项研究表明,子宫切除术的差异在绝经前妇女中最大。NOS的质量评估评分范围从0到8(中位数:3),限制主要与暴露和结果的测量有关。鉴于历史上残疾妇女面临的生殖不公正,对这一主题的有限研究表明需要对残疾妇女子宫切除术进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiologic Reviews
Epidemiologic Reviews 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Reviews is a leading review journal in public health. Published once a year, issues collect review articles on a particular subject. Recent issues have focused on The Obesity Epidemic, Epidemiologic Research on Health Disparities, and Epidemiologic Approaches to Global Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书