Abstract
Migration status and socioeconomic factors may influence access to and provision of gynaecological surgical care. However, evidence from European settings remains limited. This study aimed to examine disparities in surgical approach and indications for hysterectomy by migration status, while adjusting for education and income, among women with benign gynaecological conditions in Norway. We conducted a nationwide register-based cohort study using data from the Norwegian Patient Registry, including all women who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications in Norway between 2008 and 2020 (n = 38 913). Surgical approach was categorized as laparoscopic, vaginal, or open abdominal. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and absolute risk difference for laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy compared with open surgery, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors. The frequency of surgical indications was assessed by migration status and regional group of birth. Migrants had lower odds of undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.57–0.77) and vaginal hysterectomy (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49–0.75), compared with open surgery. Higher income was associated with increased odds of laparoscopic hysterectomy, with a stronger association observed among migrants. Migrants had lower proportions of hysterectomies performed due to genital prolapse and higher proportions due to fibroid compared with Norwegian-born women. Migration status is associated with surgical approach and hysterectomy indications, suggesting inequities in minimally invasive surgery despite Norway’s universal health coverage. These findings highlight the need for efforts to ensure equitable surgical care in gynaecology.
Introduction
Over the past few decades, surgical techniques have evolved significantly, shifting from open abdominal procedures to a variety of minimally invasive approaches, including laparoscopic, robotic, or vaginal [1, 2]. This evolution in surgery has led to improved surgical outcomes, including reduced postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery [3]. Despite these improvements, disparities in access to minimally invasive surgery among patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and migrant populations, have been reported in numerous studies from the United States and other non-European countries [4–6]. The evidence from European countries and in the field of gynaecology remains limited.
Hysterectomy is one of the most commonly performed gynaecological surgeries worldwide, with almost 5000 procedures conducted annually in Norway [2]. The choice of surgical approach is influenced by multiple factors, including surgical indications, uterine size, comorbidities, prior surgeries, geographic distribution, and surgeon experience. US and Canadian studies have shown that racial minority women are less likely to receive minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with white Caucasian women [7–10].
A review on health disparities in access to minimally invasive surgery highlighted the lack of European research on benign gynaecological conditions [11]. In the Nordic countries, a positive correlation between hysterectomy rate and income has been found in Finland [12]. In Denmark, a higher proportion of unemployed women had open hysterectomy [13], and those with a low socioeconomic position had higher odds of complications following hysterectomy [14]. However, few of these studies have simultaneously taken migrant status into account.
Migrant populations are highly diverse [15]. According to the International Organization for Migration, a migrant is anyone who moves from their usual place of residence—within a country or across borders—either temporarily or permanently, and for a wide range of reasons [16]. Despite universal health coverage in the Nordic countries, persistent disparities in reproductive health remain a major public health concern [17]. Studies from Norway indicate that migrants participate less frequently in the cervical cancer-screening program compared with Norwegian-born women [18]. Furthermore, higher educational levels correlate with increased access to specialist care for gynaecological cancer symptoms in Norway [19]. Previous reports have also shown substantial geographical variation in hysterectomy rates across different regions of Norway [20]. Furthermore, age [9] and indication [21] are known determinants of surgical approach, while temporal [2] and regional [20] factors may reflect changes in practice patterns and resource availability.
Few studies have simultaneously assessed the combined effects of migration and socioeconomic status on hysterectomy provision in a context of universal health care. This nationwide register-based cohort study examines how migration status and socioeconomic factors influence the choice of surgical approach in hysterectomies and explores differences in hysterectomy indications for benign conditions, using nationwide data between 2008 and 2020. Sub-analyses were performed after excluding fibroid indications to assess whether observed differences persisted independently of a condition known to influence uterine size and surgical approach, and restricted to a single tertiary centre to examine whether disparities remained after reducing variation in institutional practice patterns and surgical expertise.
Methods
Study design and population
We used individually linked data from the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) covering all hysterectomies performed in Norway from 2008 to 2020, in addition to sociodemographic variables from Statistics Norway. The NPR is a compulsory registry that records demographic, administrative, and clinical health data for all patients treated by public and private specialist healthcare services. Statistics Norway is the official national statistical institute and contains information on a number of socioeconomic variables. Our study sample included women with a registered hysterectomy procedure code, using the NOMESCO Classification of Surgical Procedures, as the primary procedure code.
We identified 62 648 individuals who underwent hysterectomy in Norway between 2008 and 2020. If duplicate procedures were recorded for the same individual, we considered only the last reported hysterectomy. We excluded cases with malignant, pre‑malignant, or uncertain malignant diagnoses, obstetric indications, individuals registered as men, women under 18 years, and those missing education or income data (S2).
Variables
We categorized the procedure codes by surgical approach; laparoscopic (including robotically assisted), vaginal and open surgery (S1). Laparoscopic (keyhole) hysterectomy involves entry into the abdominal cavity through small trocar ports, using a video camera for visualization and electrosurgical instruments inserted through these ports. The uterus is removed either intact or morcellated, typically via the vagina or, if necessary, through a small abdominal incision. Vaginal hysterectomy is carried out entirely through the vaginal canal without abdominal incisions and is generally suitable for smaller, mobile uteri. Open abdominal hysterectomy is performed through a transverse or midline laparotomy, allowing direct manual access to the uterus. We also included the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes recorded for the hysterectomy procedure in the NPR. These codes were used to define the indication for hysterectomy and were subsequently grouped into clinically relevant categories.
Migrant status was categorized as Norwegian-born for individuals registered as born in Norway, regardless of parental migration status (S1). Due to the small number of Norwegian-born individuals with migrant parents (n = 91), this group was included in the Norwegian-born reference category. Region of birth was classified according to the Statistics Norway Standard for World Regions and Countries [22] and categorized into: ‘EU/European Economic Area (EEA), USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand’, ‘Europe except EU/EEA’, ‘Asia’, ‘Africa’, and ‘Latin America’. Education level was reported as the highest level of completed education for each woman annually from 2008 to 2020, categorized into five categories, from least to highest educational level. Household income was defined as the total income from wages, self-employment, capital income, pensions, and social benefits received by the household. Household income was aggregated across the years preceding surgery, and the median value was used and thereafter divided into five equally sized groups with increasing income levels.
Statistical analysis
Data were analysed using Stata version 18.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated for patient and procedure characteristics, with categorical variables presented as frequencies (%) and continuous variables as means (standard deviations). Differences in categorical variables between migration groups and region of birth groups were assessed using Pearson’s chi-square test.
We used multinomial logistic regression to examine associations between migration and hysterectomy surgical approach. Results are reported as crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was defined as P < .05, and all tests were two-sided. Covariates included age, year of surgery, indication, and county. These were selected a priori based on their relevance to surgical decision making and access to care. Although these variables showed significant interactions with the outcome, none interacted significantly with the socioeconomic variables. We conducted correlation analyses between education and income, which was weak (Spearman’s ρ = 0.297), indicating no concern for multicollinearity. To assess effect modification, interaction terms between migration status and socioeconomic variables were included. The migration × income interaction was statistically significant and retained in the model.
We performed a sub-analysis where we excluded cases with fibroids as the surgical indication as fibroids can enlarge the uterus, often necessitating an abdominal approach, and are known to have a higher prevalence in some ethnic groups, and assessed whether differences by migration status persisted among women without fibroid as indications for hysterectomy. To further account for variation in surgical practice and expertise, thereby isolating potential disparities not explained by system-level difference, we performed a sub-analysis restricted to Oslo University Hospital, the only gynaecological department in Oslo County and a high-volume centre with advanced surgical expertise.
Results
Characteristics of the study population
After exclusions, the final cohort included 38 913 women who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions. Among the women studied, 17 387 (44.7%) had a laparoscopic procedure, 9288 (23.9%) underwent a vaginal hysterectomy, and 12 238 (31.4%) had an open abdominal hysterectomy (Table 1). The most common indication for hysterectomy was fibroids, followed by abnormal uterine bleeding, and genital prolapse. Indications varied by surgical approach: fibroids were most common among women undergoing open and laparoscopic hysterectomy, whereas genital prolapse was the leading indication for vaginal hysterectomy. Women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy were younger on average compared with those undergoing vaginal or open abdominal hysterectomy (mean age 46, 54, and 50 years, respectively). The use of laparoscopic hysterectomy increased over time, with a greater proportion of procedures being performed laparoscopically in the later years of the study period (2018–20) than in earlier years.
Table 1.
Characteristics of women undergoing hysterectomy by surgical approach (n = 38 913), with n (%) and mean (±SD).
| Total n = 38 913 | Laparoscopic 17 387 (44.7%) | Vaginal 9288 (23.9%) | Open 12 238 (31.4%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at time of surgery (SD) | 49 (10) | 46 (7) | 54 (13) | 50 (9) |
| Year of surgery | ||||
| 2008–11 | 12 495 (32.1) | 3208 (18.5) | 3878 (41.8) | 5409 (44.2) |
| 2012–14 | 9146 (23.5) | 3728 (21.4) | 2356 (25.4) | 3062 (25.0) |
| 2015–17 | 8779 (22.6) | 4843 (27.9) | 1726 (18.6) | 2210 (18.1) |
| ≥2018 | 8493 (21.8) | 5608 (32.3) | 1328 (14.3) | 1557 (12.7) |
| Length of hospitalization | ||||
| <1 day | 1965 (5.0) | 1101 (6.3) | 813 (8.8) | 51 (0.4) |
| 1–2 days | 20 589 (52.9) | 13 174 (75.8) | 4575 (49.3) | 2840 (23.2) |
| 3 days | 6806 (17.5) | 1813 (10.4) | 2053 (22.1) | 2940 (24.0) |
| >3 days | 9553 (24.5) | 1299 (7.5) | 1847 (19.9) | 6407 (52.4) |
| Surgical planning | ||||
| Acute (within 24 h) | 956 (2.5) | 227 (1.3) | 304 (3.3) | 425 (3.5) |
| Elective | 37 957 (97.5) | 17 160 (98.7) | 8984 (96.7) | 11 813 (96.5) |
| Indication for surgery | ||||
| Fibroid | 15 982 (41.1) | 6917 (39.8) | 1175 (12.7) | 7890 (64.5) |
| Abnormal uterine bleeding | 11 723 (30.1) | 6518 (37.5) | 3062 (33.0) | 2143 (17.5) |
| Female genital prolapse | 5041 (13.0) | 396 (2.3) | 4558 (49.1) | 87 (0.7) |
| Endometriosis and pelvic pain | 4251 (10.9) | 3207 (18.4) | 464 (5.0) | 580 (4.7) |
| Other | 1916 (4.9) | 349 (2.0) | 29 (0.3) | 1538 (12.6) |
| Regional health authority | ||||
| South–Eastern | 23 047 (59.2) | 11 649 (67.0) | 5166 (55.6) | 6232 (50.9) |
| Western | 5648 (14.5) | 2809 (16.2) | 1071 (11.5) | 1768 (14.4) |
| Central | 5904 (15.2) | 1706 (9.8) | 1881 (20.3) | 2317 (18.9) |
| Northern | 4268 (11.0) | 1182 (6.8) | 1170 (12.6) | 1916 (15.7) |
| Other | 46 (0.1) | 41 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (0.0) |
| Educational attainment | ||||
| None/primary | 331 (0.9) | 143 (0.8) | 47 (0.5) | 141 (1.2) |
| Lower secondary | 8874 (22.8) | 3617 (20.8) | 2491 (26.8) | 2766 (22.6) |
| Upper secondary | 16 654 (42.8) | 7175 (41.3) | 4403 (47.4) | 5076 (41.5) |
| Higher education, undergraduate | 10 935 (28.1) | 5328 (30.6) | 2092 (22.5) | 3515 (28.7) |
| Higher education, postgraduate | 2119 (5.4) | 1124 (6.5) | 255 (2.7) | 740 (6.0) |
| Average household income NOK (SD) | 366 408 (156 179) | 371 023 (165 439) | 351 846 (131 594) | 370 903 (159 130) |
| Migration status | ||||
| Norwegian-borna | 33 763 (86.7) | 14 757 (84.9) | 8624 (92.9) | 10 382 (84.8) |
| Migrant | 5150 (13.2) | 2630 (15.1) | 664 (7.1) | 1856 (15.2) |
| Region of birth among migrantsb row% | ||||
| EU/EEA, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand | 1989 (38.6) | 1038 (52.2) | 332 (16.7) | 619 (31.1) |
| Europe except EU/EEA | 460 (8.9) | 211 (45.9) | 67 (14.6) | 182 (39.6) |
| Asia | 1926 (37.4) | 982 (51.0) | 209 (10.9) | 735 (38.2) |
| Africa | 407 (7.9) | 177 (43.5) | 17 (4.2) | 213 (52.3) |
| Latin America | 367 (7.1) | 222 (60.5) | 39 (10.6) | 106 (28.9) |
Born in Norway with two Norwegian-born parents + Norwegian-born to immigrant parents + Norwegian-born with one foreign-born parent.
Oceania excluding Australia and New Zealand is excluded.
Most women were Norwegian born (86.7%), and migrants comprised 13.2% of the sample. Among migrants, the largest proportion were born in EU/EEA countries, USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand (38.6%), followed by Asia (37.4%), Europe outside EU/EEA (8.9%), Africa (7.9%), and Latin America (7.1%). Laparoscopic hysterectomy was the predominant approach across most groups, although women born in Africa had a higher proportion of open hysterectomy (52.3%). Vaginal hysterectomy was least frequent among women born in Africa (4.2%) compared with Norwegian-born women (25.5%). Regarding socioeconomic characteristics, 42.8% of women had completed upper secondary education and 33.5% had higher education.
Surgical approach of hysterectomy by migration factors
Multinomial logistic regression showed that migrants had lower odds of undergoing laparoscopic (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.57–0.77) and vaginal hysterectomy (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49–0.75) compared with open hysterectomy (Table 2). Within the migrant group, migrants with higher income levels (levels 4 and 5) had increased odds of laparoscopic hysterectomy, with OR 1.28 (95% CI: 1.01–1.63) for income level 4 and OR 1.34 (95% CI: 1.05–1.70) for income level 5, compared with income level 1. The migration × income interaction was statistically significant, indicating that the association between migration status and surgical approach varied across income levels. When considering income regardless of migration status, only the highest income level (level 5) was associated with increased odds of laparoscopic hysterectomy (OR 1.14, 95% CI: 1.03–1.27), while income level 4 showed a near-significant trend (OR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00–1.23). None of the education levels showed significant associations, although levels 2 (OR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.86–1.51), 3 (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.90–1.57), and 4 (OR 1.17, 95% CI: 0.89–1.55) all suggested a possible trend towards increased odds of laparoscopic, as compared with open hysterectomy. For vaginal hysterectomy, none of the educational or income levels showed significant associations.
Table 2.
Adjusteda multinomial regression with OR, 95% CI, P values, and ARD for surgical approach of hysterectomy (open hysterectomy as base outcome vs. laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy).
|
Laparoscopic hysterectomy
|
Vaginal hysterectomy
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P value | ARD d | OR (95% CI) | P value | ARD | |
| Migrant status b | ||||||
| Norwegian-born | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Migrant | 0.66 (0.57, 0.77) | <.001 | −7.95 | 0.60 (0.49, 0.75) | <.001 | −9.55 |
| Income levelc | ||||||
| Income level 1 | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Income level 2 | 1.00 (0.90, 1.11) | .998 | 0.0 | 0.97 (0.85, 1.10) | .588 | −0.64 |
| Income level 3 | 1.07 (0.97, 1.19) | .198 | 1.44 | 1.03 (0.91, 1.17) | .634 | 0.62 |
| Income level 4 | 1.11 (1.00, 1.23) | .051 | 2.24 | 0.95 (0.83, 1.07) | .395 | −1.07 |
| Income level 5 | 1.14 (1.03, 1.27) | .011 | 2.82 | 0.96 (0.84, 1.09) | .503 | −0.85 |
| Educational attainment | ||||||
| None/primary | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Lower secondary | 1.14 (0.86, 1.51) | .358 | 2.82 | 0.97 (0.62, 1.50) | .883 | −0.64 |
| Upper secondary | 1.19 (0.90, 1.57) | .219 | 3.77 | 1.04 (0.67, 1.61) | .860 | 0.83 |
| Higher education, undergraduate | 1.17 (0.89, 1.55) | .270 | 3.4 | 0.88 (0.57, 1.37) | .568 | −2.61 |
| Higher education, postgraduate | 1.01 (0.75, 1.35) | .950 | 0.21 | 0.78 (0.49, 1.25) | .300 | −4.95 |
| Migrant status*income | ||||||
| Migrant#1 | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) | ||||
| Migrant#2 | 1.22 (0.98, 1.52) | .073 | 4.33 | 1.00 (0.73, 1.39) | .979 | 0.0 |
| Migrant#3 | 1.13 (0.90, 1.42) | .277 | 2.63 | 1.01 (0.72, 1.42) | .946 | 0.21 |
| Migrant#4 | 1.28 (1.01, 1.63) | .043 | 5.42 | 0.90 (0.61, 1.32) | .592 | −2.16 |
| Migrant#5 | 1.34 (1.05, 1.70) | .017 | 6.48 | 1.01 (0.69, 1.50) | .950 | 0.21 |
Adjusted for age, year of surgery, indication, and county.
Norwegian-born includes women born in Norway regardless of parental migration status, including women born in Norway to migrant parents.
Income level 1 represents the lowest household income quintile and income level 5 the highest.
Open hysterectomy occurred in 31.4% of the study population (>10%). Because the outcome is common, ORs may overestimate relative risks. Absolute risk differences were, therefore, also calculated assuming a baseline probability of 30% for open hysterectomy.
The regression model also showed associations with surgical indication, region, year, and age (Table S3). The odds of laparoscopic hysterectomy increased over time (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.24–1.26), while increasing age was associated with reduced odds (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.96–0.97). Compared with fibroids, women with genital prolapse had higher odds of vaginal hysterectomy (OR 473.42, 95% CI: 372.41–601.84). Compared with the reference hospital (Oslo), all other counties showed higher odds of vaginal hysterectomy.
Sub analysis on single-centre and exclusion of uterine fibroid as indication for hysterectomy
In sub-analyses, findings were consistent with the main results. In the single-centre analysis of hysterectomies performed at Oslo University Hospital (n = 4657), migrant women had lower odds of undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with open surgery (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.65, 0.96) (S4). Women in the highest income group had higher odds of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with those in the lowest group (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07, 1.78). In the analysis restricted to cases with fibroids as the sole indication at Oslo University Hospital (n = 2220), migrant status remained associated with reduced odds of laparoscopic hysterectomy (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.62–0.94, P = .012).
In the nationwide sub-analysis excluding fibroids indications (n = 22 931), migrant women had lower odds of both laparoscopic (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54, 0.88) and vaginal hysterectomy (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38, 0.68), compared with Norwegian-born women (S5). Women in the highest income group again had higher odds of undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with those in the lowest income group (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10, 1.50).
Indications and socioeconomic characteristics by migration status and region of birth
The distribution of hysterectomy indications differed significantly between Norwegian-born women and migrants (P < .001) and across region-of-birth groups (P < .001) (Table 3). Fibroids were the most common indication for hysterectomy among migrants compared with Norwegian-born women (56.3% vs. 38.7%). Fibroids were also the most common indication across all migrant region-of-birth groups, particularly among women born in Africa (75.9%). Over time, the proportion of hysterectomies performed for fibroids declined among Norwegian-born women, but increased across all migrant region-of-birth groups. The steepest increase was observed among African-born women (Fig. 1). Abnormal uterine bleeding was more common among Norwegian-born women than migrants (31.0% vs. 24.3%). Conversely, hysterectomy due to genital prolapse was substantially less common among migrants (5.7% vs. 14.1%) and was particularly rare among African-born women. The prevalence of prolapse as an indication for hysterectomy remained low across all migrant region of birth groups throughout the study period, while for Norwegian-born women we observed a slight downward trend. Endometriosis and pelvic pain as indications for hysterectomy were more evenly distributed between the groups, with both groups showing an upward trend, particularly after 2016. Educational attainment and household income by migration status and region of birth are presented in Table S6.
Table 3.
Hysterectomy indications by migration status and region of birth, n (%). Differences assessed using Pearson’s chi-square tests.
| Fibroid | Abnormal uterine bleeding | Female genital prolapse | Endometriosis and pelvic pain | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Migration statusa | |||||
| Norwegian-born | 13 080 (38.7) | 10 470 (31.0) | 4747 (14.1) | 3681 (10.9) | 1785 (5.3) |
| Migrant | 2902 (56.3) | 1253 (24.3) | 294 (5.7) | 570 (11.1) | 131 (2.5) |
| Region of birthb | |||||
| EU/EEA, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand | 979 (49.2) | 507 (25.5) | 173 (8.7) | 247 (12.4) | 83 (4.2) |
| Europe except EU/EEA | 277 (60.2) | 111 (24.1) | 23 (5.0) | 37 (8.0) | 12 (2.6) |
| Asia | 1133 (58.8) | 456 (23.7) | 79 (4.1) | 232 (12.0) | 26 (1.3) |
| Africa | 309 (75.9) | 69 (17.0) | 7 (1.7) | 17 (4.2) | 5 (1.2) |
| Latin America | 204 (55.4) | 110 (29.9) | 12 (3.3) | 37 (10.1) | 5 (1.4) |
Overall difference between Norwegian-born and migrant women: Pearson’s χ²(4) = 712.5, P < .001.
Overall difference across region-of-birth groups: Pearson’s χ²(20) = 862.1, P < .001.
Figure 1.
Temporal changes in the distribution of hysterectomy indications, expressed as the percentage of all hysterectomies per year attributable to each indication, stratified by region of birth and migration status.
Discussion
Main findings
In this cohort of 38 913 women who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions in Norway from 2008 to 2020, migrant women had significantly lower odds of undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy. The adjusted risk difference was −8 percentage points for laparoscopic hysterectomy, and −10 percentage points for vaginal hysterectomy, compared with open surgery. Higher income levels were associated with an increased likelihood of laparoscopic surgery, for both migrants and non-migrants. Sub-analyses on single-centre and non-fibroid diagnoses, potentially controlling for variation in clinical culture, surgical skill set and uterine size, showed similar results. Significant differences in surgical indications were observed between Norwegian-born women and migrants, and across region-of-birth groups, with fibroids being consistently more common among migrants—particularly African-born women. These findings suggest that, despite universal health coverage, disparities in access to minimally invasive hysterectomy persist, particularly among migrant women.
Interpretation in light of existing literature
Our finding of lower odds of laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy among migrant women likely reflects a combination of patient-related and healthcare system-related factors.
Patient-related factors may include differences in disease presentation, health literacy, symptom perception, and healthcare-seeking behaviour [23]. The higher prevalence of fibroids among migrant women may influence the choice of surgical approach, as fibroids can increase uterine size and make minimally invasive surgery more challenging. It is well established that both the incidence and clinical presentation of fibroids vary by ethnicity, with women of African descent having the highest risk [24]. The higher proportion of fibroids as an indication for hysterectomy among migrant women may also reflect changes in the composition of the migrant population in Norway over time, with an increasing proportion of women born in African countries [25]. More broadly, differences in indications between migrants and Norwegian-born women may reflect underlying variations in reproductive health, healthcare-seeking behaviour, or diagnostic patterns. This interpretation is supported by findings from a UK audit, which showed that women from more socioeconomically deprived areas were more likely to present with severe symptoms of heavy menstrual bleeding, suggesting potential delays in care-seeking or differences in symptom perception [26]. The observed increase in endometriosis and pelvic pain as indications for hysterectomy may reflect growing awareness and improved diagnosis of these conditions over time [27]. The substantially lower proportion of genital prolapse as an indication for hysterectomy among migrant women compared with Norwegian-born women may be partly explained by the younger age profile of the migrant population, as the prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse increases with age [28].
Healthcare system–related factors are also likely to play an important role. These include communication barriers, differences in access to specialist care, variation in referral pathways, and differences in the availability of minimally invasive surgical expertise across hospitals. Provider-level factors, including surgeons’ training, experience, and treatment preferences, may also influence surgical decision-making. Our sub-analyses restricted to a single, tertiary level hospital and to non-fibroid indications, yielded similar results of lower odds of laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy among migrant women, suggesting that these disparities are not solely explained by clinical factors or uterine size, consistent with previous findings [8, 29, 30]. For instance, one US study found that Black women had twice the odds of undergoing open hysterectomy compared with white women, even after adjusting for uterine size, BMI, and prior pelvic surgery [29]. Similarly, Bougie et al. [8] found that Black women undergoing hysterectomy for non-fibroid indications had lower odds of receiving minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with white women (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69–0.86). Interestingly, a recent US study showed that non-English speaking women were significantly less likely to receive a minimally invasive hysterectomy [27], further underscoring the impact of communications barriers on healthcare access and treatment options.
A growing body of literature recognizes migration as an important social determinant of health, influencing healthcare access, utilization, and health outcomes through multiple pathways. These include language barriers, differences in health literacy, unfamiliarity with healthcare systems, socioeconomic disadvantage, and experiences of exclusion or discrimination. The disparities observed in our study may therefore reflect broader structural determinants operating across the healthcare pathway rather than differences in clinical need alone. Numerous papers on migrant women’s health in the Nordic countries have demonstrated disparities in healthcare use and adverse reproductive outcomes among migrant women [31, 32]. Although it is challenging to determine the underlying mechanisms—given that large registry-based studies often lack detailed migration-specific variables—some research has explored the role of sociocultural factors. For example, a foreign‑born father has been associated with an increased risk of adverse neonatal outcomes and migrants with shorter residence have been shown to have a higher risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury [33, 34]. These findings suggest that part of the observed risk differential may reflect broader structural and interpersonal influences, including communication barriers, limited familiarity with the healthcare system, lower health literacy, and potential discrimination within healthcare services. Although our study does not provide evidence for this, similar underlying mechanisms could plausibly be involved.
In accordance with our findings on income levels, several US studies have reported that women with lower income are at increased risk of undergoing open hysterectomy [9, 10]. For instance, payment by private insurance was associated with laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with payment by Medicare. However, in the US context, the choice of surgical approach may be influenced by the type of insurance coverage. Thus, given the substantial differences in healthcare financing between the United States and Norway, direct comparisons may be challenging. Furthermore, we did not identify comparable data from other European countries, which may reflect the assumption that universal healthcare systems inherently mitigate socioeconomic disparities in access to care. One Danish study with data from 2004 to 2008, found a higher proportion of unemployed women undergoing open hysterectomy [13], however, the distribution of the different approaches of hysterectomy were not comparable to our data with only 6% having a laparoscopic procedure. Regarding educational status, one Canadian study reported no association between the minimally invasive approach and neighbourhood educational attainment, suggesting that education may not uniformly influence surgical options across different healthcare contexts [35].
In summary, our study provides novel evidence of disparities in access to minimally invasive hysterectomy among migrant women within a universal healthcare system. The observed higher prevalence of fibroids among women of African origin and the association between higher income and greater use of laparoscopic hysterectomy are consistent with findings from previous international studies.
Strengths and limitations
The major strength of our study is the use of individual data from various population-based registries, covering the total population of women who underwent hysterectomy. The NPR is known for its high-quality data, and Statistics Norway compiles statistics based on multiple nationwide administrative registries [36]. These data are widely used in epidemiological research and are generally considered to be of high quality. However, information on migrants’ educational attainment, particularly when obtained abroad, may be less precise, as it is partly based on survey data and incomplete registry information. Since 2014, Statistics Norway has applied statistical methods to estimate missing educational levels at the aggregate level. However, these estimates are not available at the individual level, which may affect data accuracy in our study.
While our analysis adjusted for the most common indications for hysterectomy, we were unable to include additional clinical covariates that may influence surgical approach. For instance, this study’s database did not give us an opportunity to examine differences by surgeon, as it may be possible that results differed by surgeon characteristics such as surgical volume and physician training. However, we performed a sub-analysis within a single hospital to account for variations in institutional culture and clinical practices. Furthermore, our dataset did not include information on uterine size, which may influence choice of approach. To account for uterine size, we performed a sub-analysis where we excluded fibroid indications, as fibroids typically have the greatest impact on uterine size and weight [37]. Another limitation is the categorization of migration status and regions of birth, as it does not capture heterogeneity within migrant groups, which may obscure important subgroup differences, potentially underestimating or misinterpreting disparities. We lacked information on key migration-related characteristics such as reason for migration, duration of residence, and age at migration, which may be important determinants of health and healthcare use. Moreover, although individuals born in Norway to migrant parents may differ from other Norwegian-born individuals with respect to migration-related characteristics, including this small group in the Norwegian-born reference category may introduce some heterogeneity. Furthermore, the categorization of region of birth may further mask differences between subgroups.
Implications and further research
While disparities in obstetric outcomes have received increasing attention, inequities in gynaecological care, particularly regarding access to minimally invasive hysterectomy, remain insufficiently documented in European countries. To ensure that all women receive high-quality, evidence-based treatment, equity must be explicitly integrated into the organization and delivery of gynaecological care. This includes systematic monitoring of surgical approaches by migration status and socioeconomic indicators to identify, track, and address disparities in access to minimally invasive procedures. In addition, implementation of national clinical guidelines to promote equitable access to minimally invasive hysterectomy is important. Targeted interventions to improve communication and health literacy are also needed, including interpreter services and culturally adapted patient information.
Our study is an important first step in addressing the underexplored relationship between migration status, socioeconomic background and provision of surgical care for benign gynaecological conditions in Norway. Further research is needed to investigate the underlying mechanisms behind this association, exploring the social, cultural, and institutional factors that influence surgical decision-making. This includes examining clinician bias, variation in surgical training, and access to high-volume centres. Qualitative studies involving both patients and clinicians could provide valuable insights into patient preferences, trust in healthcare providers, and perceived barriers to care, which could be crucial for understanding the mechanisms driving these disparities. Additionally, outcome-based research comparing recovery, complications, and satisfaction across surgical approaches and demographic groups would help inform strategies for more equitable and patient-centred care.
Supplementary Material
Contributor Information
Sukhjeet Bains, Norwegian Research Centre for Women’s Health, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Tina Tellum, Department of Gynaecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Dawit Shawel Abebe, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Trond Melbye Michelsen, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Obstetrics, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ingvil Krarup Sørbye, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Obstetrics, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data are available at EURPUB online.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Funding
Postdoctoral research grant from South-Eastern Norway Regional Health authority grant nr. 21/00168-326.
Data availability
The datasets used in this study are not publicly available and can only be accessed upon reasonable request, subject to approval by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics. Data access requests should be directed to sukbai@ous-hf.no
Ethics approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Regional Committees for Medical Research Ethics South East Norway nr. 437019
Key points.
Migrant women in Norway had lower odds of receiving minimally invasive hysterectomy than Norwegian‑born women, even within a universal health coverage system.
Differences in surgical indication and clinical factors did not fully account for disparities in hysterectomy approach, indicating the influence of structural or systemic barriers in care pathways.
These findings highlight the need for policies to reduce inequities in gynaecological care through monitoring, guideline development and adherence, and interventions to improve communication and health literacy.
References
- 1. Madhvani K, Curnow T, Carpenter T. Route of hysterectomy: a retrospective, cohort study in English NHS hospitals from 2011 to 2017. BJOG 2019;126:795–802. 10.1111/1471-0528.15539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Johanson ML, Dogl M, Lieng M. Hysterectomy in Norway 2008-18. Tidsskr nor Laegeforen 2020;140:14. 10.4045/tidsskr.20.0167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Pickett CM, Seeratan DD, Mol BWJ et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;8:CD003677. 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Glance LG, Joynt Maddox KE, Mazzefi M et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in access to minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2247968. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.47968 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Barnes WA, Carter-Brooks CM, Wu CZ et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in access to minimally invasive gynecologic surgery for benign pathology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2021;33:279–87. 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Schneider MA, Gero D, Muller M et al. Inequalities in access to minimally invasive general surgery: a comprehensive nationwide analysis across 20 years. Surg Endosc 2021;35:6227–43. 10.1007/s00464-020-08123-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Abenhaim HA, Azziz R, Hu J et al. Socioeconomic and racial predictors of undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy for selected benign diseases: analysis of 341487 hysterectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:11–5. 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Bougie O, Singh SS, Chen I et al. Relationship between race/ethnicity and hysterectomy outcomes for benign gynecologic conditions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019;26:456–62. 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.05.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Patel PR, Lee J, Rodriguez AM et al. Disparities in use of laparoscopic hysterectomies: a nationwide analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21:223–7. 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.08.709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Price JT, Zimmerman LD, Koelper NC et al. Social determinants of access to minimally invasive hysterectomy: reevaluating the relationship between race and route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:572 e1–10. 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Ptacek I, Aref-Adib M, Mallick R et al. Each uterus counts: a narrative review of health disparities in benign gynaecology and minimal access surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021;265:130–6. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.08.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Luoto R, Keskimaki I, Reunanen A. Socioeconomic variations in hysterectomy: evidence from a linkage study of the Finnish hospital discharge register and population census. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997;51:67–73. 10.1136/jech.51.1.67 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Daugbjerg SB, Ottesen B, Diderichsen F et al. Socioeconomic factors may influence the surgical technique for benign hysterectomy. Dan Med J 2012;59:A4440. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Daugbjerg SB, Cesaroni G, Ottesen B et al. Effect of socioeconomic position on patient outcome after hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014;93:926–34. 10.1111/aogs.12444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Abubakar I, Aldridge RW, Devakumar D, UCL–Lancet Commission on Migration and Health et al. The UCL-Lancet commission on migration and health: the health of a world on the move. Lancet 2018;392:2606–54. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32114-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Key Migration Terms: International Organization for Migration. https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms
- 17. Strand BH, Madsen C. Social Inequalities in Health. Public Health Report Editorial Group, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Moen KA, Kumar B, Qureshi S et al. Differences in cervical cancer screening between immigrants and nonimmigrants in Norway: a primary healthcare register-based study. Eur J Cancer Prev 2017;26:521–7. 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Balasubramaniam K, Ravn P, Christensen RD et al. Gynecological cancer alarm symptoms: is contact with specialist care associated with lifestyle and socioeconomic status? A population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2016;95:976–83. 10.1111/aogs.12927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Byhring HS, BL Shu J, Førde OH et al. Gynaecology Healthcare Atlas - Use of Selected Gynaecology Health Services During the Period 2015–2017. Senter for klinisk dokumentasjon og evaluering, Norway, 2019.
- 21. Neis KJ, Zubke W, Römer T et al. Indications and route of hysterectomy for benign diseases. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016;76:350–64. 10.1055/s-0042-104288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Moe D, Molstad CS. Standarder for Verdensinndelinger og Landkoder. Oslo: Statistics Norway, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. European Strategies for Tackling Social Inequities in Health: Levelling up Part 2. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2006. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/5799093c-1d6b-4835-86b6-82fcef57c7ed/content
- 24. Marshall LM, Spiegelman D, Barbieri RL et al. Variation in the incidence of uterine leiomyoma among premenopausal women by age and race. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:967–73. 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00534-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Skenteris K, Kyrkjerud H. Migration and Integration 2024 -2025, Report for Norway to the OECD: The Directorate of Integration and Diversity, 2025. https://www.imdi.no/globalassets/rapporter/2026/migration-and-integration-2024-2025—report-for-norway-to-the-oecd_1.pdf
- 26. Kiran A, Geary RS, Gurol-Urganci I et al. Sociodemographic differences in symptom severity and duration among women referred to secondary care for menorrhagia in England and Wales: a cohort study from the National Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Audit. BMJ Open 2018;8:e018444. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Magnus MC, Hanevik HI, Wensaas KA et al. Endometriosis, adenomyosis and related health problems among women in Norway. Tidsskr Laegeforen 2025;145:10. 10.4045/tidsskr.25.0155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Swift SE. The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:277–85. 10.1067/mob.2000.107583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Alexander AL, Strohl AE, Rieder S et al. Examining disparities in route of surgery and postoperative complications in black race and hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2019;133:6–12. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Callegari LS, Katon JG, Gray KE et al. Associations between race/ethnicity, uterine fibroids, and minimally invasive hysterectomy in the VA healthcare system. Womens Health Issues 2019;29:48–55. 10.1016/j.whi.2018.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Kumar BN, Diaz E, Castaneda AE et al. Migration health research in the nordic countries: priorities and implications for public health. Scand J Public Health 2022;50:1039–46. 10.1177/14034948221125037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Bains S, Mæland KS, Vik ES. Prenatal health of immigrant women in Norway - an exploratory literature review. Tidsskr Laegeforen 2021;141:2. 10.4045/tidsskr.20.0428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Sorbye IK, Bains S, Vangen S et al. Obstetric anal sphincter injury by maternal origin and length of residence: a nationwide cohort study. BJOG 2022;129:423–31. 10.1111/1471-0528.16985 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Vik ES, Aasheim V, Nilsen RM et al. Paternal country of origin and adverse neonatal outcomes in births to foreign-born women in Norway: a population-based cohort study. PLoS Med 2020;17:e1003395. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Chen I, Wise MR, Dunn S et al. Social and geographic determinants of hysterectomy in Ontario: a population-based retrospective cross-sectional analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2017;39:861–9. 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.03.109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Bakken IJ, Ariansen AMS, Knudsen GP et al. The Norwegian patient registry and the Norwegian registry for primary health care: research potential of two nationwide health-care registries. Scand J Public Health 2020;48:49–55. 10.1177/1403494819859737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Stewart EA, Laughlin-Tommaso SK. Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med 2024;391:1721–33. 10.1056/NEJMcp2309623 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used in this study are not publicly available and can only be accessed upon reasonable request, subject to approval by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics. Data access requests should be directed to sukbai@ous-hf.no