2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/158113
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Reporting of Skipped Periods by Women in the Menopausal Transition
Abstract:
Reporting of Skipped Periods by Women in the Menopausal Transition
Conference Sponsor:Western Institute of Nursing
Conference Year:2004
Author:Smith-DiJulio, Kathy, RN, MA
P.I. Institution Name:University of Washington School of Nursing
Contact Address:University of Washington , School of Nursing, Seattle, WA, 85721-0203, USA
Co-Authors:Nancy Fugate Woods, RN, PhD, FAAN
Introduction: When studying the menopausal transition (MT), researchers typically ask participants to keep menstrual cycle records and report episodes of bleeding and no bleeding. Implicit in this procedure is the assumption that retrospective reporting of skipping is not as accurate as a written record. This assumption has not been tested. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare retrospective reporting of skipped menstrual periods by a group of women in the MT to the number identified by the researchers and based on menstrual cycle records. Methods: The sample consisted of a subset of women in late MT (defined according to the method of Mitchell, Woods and Mariella) who returned both complete menstrual cycle calendars and annual health updates between 1997 and 2002 (N=74) and were taking no hormones nor experiencing any disorders of the reproductive tract. The annual health updates contained questions about the occurrence and number of skipped periods during the past year. In 1998 participants were asked their definition of a skipped period. The definition used by the researchers was included as part of the question about skipping beginning in 2000. Skips documented on menstrual calendars were compared with skips reported on the annual Health Update. Descriptive statistics illustrate the relationship between the 2 sources of data. Results: The concordance rate between the presence of skips based on menstrual calendars and participant self-report of skips increased from a low of 66% in 1998 to 100% in 2002. Conversely, the amount of discordance between no identified calendar skips and a positive self-report of skips decreased from 31% in 1998 to 0% in 2002. Only 4 times in 6 years did any woman report no skips when calendar skips occurred. In contrast, there was a marked disparity in the actual numbers of calendar and self-reported skips that fluctuated year by year. The percent of concordance with calendar/self-report number of skips ranged from a low of 10% in 2002 to a high of 38% in 2001. Providing the research definition of skip on the Health Update had no effect on the accuracy of self-report of number of skips. The definitions the women used to define skipping differed markedly from that of the researchers. Implications: It is commonly understood that self-report is less accurate than a menstrual calendar when collecting data about menstrual cycle skips. Thus, it is notable that the calendar/self-report instances of skipping achieved agreement more than 66% of the time and that agreement increased as the study continued. For those studying the MT, when the primary question is about the presence or absence of skips, relying on self-report seems to be an accurate method of data collection. If information about the number of skips is important, self-report may not be an option. Providing the research definition of skip was not sufficient to improve accuracy of self-report of skip numbers. Funding Source: NINR RO1-NR04141
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Western Institute of Nursing

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleReporting of Skipped Periods by Women in the Menopausal Transitionen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/158113-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Reporting of Skipped Periods by Women in the Menopausal Transition</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Western Institute of Nursing</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2004</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Smith-DiJulio, Kathy, RN, MA</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Washington School of Nursing</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">University of Washington , School of Nursing, Seattle, WA, 85721-0203, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Nancy Fugate Woods, RN, PhD, FAAN</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Introduction: When studying the menopausal transition (MT), researchers typically ask participants to keep menstrual cycle records and report episodes of bleeding and no bleeding. Implicit in this procedure is the assumption that retrospective reporting of skipping is not as accurate as a written record. This assumption has not been tested. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare retrospective reporting of skipped menstrual periods by a group of women in the MT to the number identified by the researchers and based on menstrual cycle records. Methods: The sample consisted of a subset of women in late MT (defined according to the method of Mitchell, Woods and Mariella) who returned both complete menstrual cycle calendars and annual health updates between 1997 and 2002 (N=74) and were taking no hormones nor experiencing any disorders of the reproductive tract. The annual health updates contained questions about the occurrence and number of skipped periods during the past year. In 1998 participants were asked their definition of a skipped period. The definition used by the researchers was included as part of the question about skipping beginning in 2000. Skips documented on menstrual calendars were compared with skips reported on the annual Health Update. Descriptive statistics illustrate the relationship between the 2 sources of data. Results: The concordance rate between the presence of skips based on menstrual calendars and participant self-report of skips increased from a low of 66% in 1998 to 100% in 2002. Conversely, the amount of discordance between no identified calendar skips and a positive self-report of skips decreased from 31% in 1998 to 0% in 2002. Only 4 times in 6 years did any woman report no skips when calendar skips occurred. In contrast, there was a marked disparity in the actual numbers of calendar and self-reported skips that fluctuated year by year. The percent of concordance with calendar/self-report number of skips ranged from a low of 10% in 2002 to a high of 38% in 2001. Providing the research definition of skip on the Health Update had no effect on the accuracy of self-report of number of skips. The definitions the women used to define skipping differed markedly from that of the researchers. Implications: It is commonly understood that self-report is less accurate than a menstrual calendar when collecting data about menstrual cycle skips. Thus, it is notable that the calendar/self-report instances of skipping achieved agreement more than 66% of the time and that agreement increased as the study continued. For those studying the MT, when the primary question is about the presence or absence of skips, relying on self-report seems to be an accurate method of data collection. If information about the number of skips is important, self-report may not be an option. Providing the research definition of skip was not sufficient to improve accuracy of self-report of skip numbers. Funding Source: NINR RO1-NR04141 </td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T20:31:19Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T20:31:19Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipWestern Institute of Nursingen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.