Skip to main content
PMC home page
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 2000 Sep;90(9):1455–1458. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.9.1455

Biosocial determinants of hysterectomy in New Zealand.

A Dharmalingam 1, I Pool 1, J Dickson 1
PMCID: PMC1447627  PMID: 10983207

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the prevalence and biosocial correlates of hysterectomy. METHODS: Data were from a 1995 national survey of women aged 20 to 59 years. We applied piecewise nonparametric exponential hazards models to a subsample aged 25 to 59 to estimate the effects of biosocial correlates on hysterectomy likelihood. RESULTS: Risks of hysterectomy for 1991 through 1995 were lower than those before 1981. University-educated and professional women were less likely to undergo hysterectomy. Higher parity and intrauterine device side effects increased the risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms international results, especially those on education and occupation, but also points to ethnicity's mediating role. Education and occupation covary independently with hysterectomy. Analysis of time variance and periodicity showed declines in likelihood from 1981.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (72.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bachmann G. A. Hysterectomy. A critical review. J Reprod Med. 1990 Sep;35(9):839–862. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Borman B., McKenna S., Findlay J. Hysterectomies in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 1986 Jun 25;99(804):470–470. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brett K. M., Marsh J. V., Madans J. H. Epidemiology of hysterectomy in the United States: demographic and reproductive factors in a nationally representative sample. J Womens Health. 1997 Jun;6(3):309–316. doi: 10.1089/jwh.1997.6.309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bunker J. P., Brown B. W., Jr The physician-patient as an informed consumer of surgical services. N Engl J Med. 1974 May 9;290(19):1051–1055. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197405092901905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carlson K. J., Nichols D. H., Schiff I. Indications for hysterectomy. N Engl J Med. 1993 Mar 25;328(12):856–860. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199303253281207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Coulter A., McPherson K., Vessey M. Do British women undergo too many or too few hysterectomies? Soc Sci Med. 1988;27(9):987–994. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90289-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dickinson J. A., Leeder S. R., Sanson-Fisher R. W. Frequency of cervical smear-tests among patients of general practitioners. Med J Aust. 1988 Feb 1;148(3):128–131. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1988.tb112772.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Domenighetti G., Casabianca A., Gutzwiller F., Martinoli S. Revisiting the most informed consumer of surgical services. The physician-patient. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993 Fall;9(4):505–513. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300005420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Domenighetti G., Luraschi P., Casabianca A., Gutzwiller F., Spinelli A., Pedrinis E., Repetto F. Effect of information campaign by the mass media on hysterectomy rates. Lancet. 1988 Dec 24;2(8626-8627):1470–1473. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)90943-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kjerulff K., Langenberg P., Guzinski G. The socioeconomic correlates of hysterectomies in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1993 Jan;83(1):106–108. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.1.106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Macintosh M. C. Incidence of hysterectomy in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 1987 Jun 10;100(825):345–347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Marks N. F., Shinberg D. S. Socioeconomic differences in hysterectomy: the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Am J Public Health. 1997 Sep;87(9):1507–1514. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.9.1507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. McPherson K., Wennberg J. E., Hovind O. B., Clifford P. Small-area variations in the use of common surgical procedures: an international comparison of New England, England, and Norway. N Engl J Med. 1982 Nov 18;307(21):1310–1314. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198211183072104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Meilahn E. N., Matthews K. A., Egeland G., Kelsey S. F. Characteristics of women with hysterectomy. Maturitas. 1989 Dec;11(4):319–329. doi: 10.1016/0378-5122(89)90028-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Muldoon M. J. Gynaecological illness after sterilization. Br Med J. 1972 Jan 8;1(5792):84–85. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.5792.84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Paul C., Skegg D. C., Smeijers J., Spears G. F. Contraceptive practice in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 1988 Dec 14;101(859):809–813. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Pokras R., Hufnagel V. G. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1965-84. Am J Public Health. 1988 Jul;78(7):852–853. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.7.852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pokras R. Hysterectomy: past, present and future. Stat Bull Metrop Insur Co. 1989 Oct-Dec;70(4):12–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Roos N. P. Hysterectomies in one Canadian Province: a new look at risks and benefits. Am J Public Health. 1984 Jan;74(1):39–46. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.1.39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ryan M., Dennerstein L. Hysterectomy and tubal ligation. Adv Psychosom Med. 1986;15:180–198. doi: 10.1159/000411855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Santow G., Bracher M. Correlates of hysterectomy in Australia. Soc Sci Med. 1992 Apr;34(8):929–942. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90261-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Santow G. Education and hysterectomy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Feb;35(1):60–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1995.tb01833.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Schacht P. J., Pemberton A. What is unnecessary surgery? Who shall decide? Issues of consumer sovereignty, conflict and self-regulation. Soc Sci Med. 1985;20(3):199–206. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(85)90232-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Scott H. M., Scott W. G. Hysterectomy for nonmalignant conditions: cost to New Zealand society. N Z Med J. 1995 Oct 27;108(1010):423–426. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Selwood T., Wood C. Incidence of hysterectomy in Australia. Med J Aust. 1978 Aug 26;2(5):201–204. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1978.tb131461.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Stergachis A., Shy K. K., Grothaus L. C., Wagner E. H., Hecht J. A., Anderson G., Normand E. H., Raboud J. Tubal sterilization and the long-term risk of hysterectomy. JAMA. 1990 Dec 12;264(22):2893–2898. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Templeton A. A., Cole S. Hysterectomy following sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982 Oct;89(10):845–848. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1982.tb05038.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wilcox L. S., Koonin L. M., Pokras R., Strauss L. T., Xia Z., Peterson H. B. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988-1990. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Apr;83(4):549–555. doi: 10.1097/00006250-199404000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Yusuf F., Briggs D. K. Incidence of hysterectomy and tubal ligation in public hospitals in south Australia, 1980-82. J Biosoc Sci. 1988 Oct;20(4):453–459. doi: 10.1017/s0021932000017570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. van Keep P. A., Wildemeersch D., Lehert P. Hysterectomy in six European countries. Maturitas. 1983 Aug;5(2):69–75. doi: 10.1016/0378-5122(83)90001-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES