Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 2002 Jun;56(6):461–465. doi: 10.1136/jech.56.6.461

Hysterectomy and socioeconomic position in Rome, Italy

E Materia 1, L Rossi 1, T Spadea 1, L Cacciani 1, G Baglio 1, G Cesaroni 1, M Arca 1, C Perucci 1
PMCID: PMC1732169  PMID: 12011206

Abstract

Study objective: There exists conflicting evidence regarding the higher risk of hysterectomy among women of a lower educational and economic level. This study aims to assess whether in Italy socioeconomic level is related to hysterectomy undertaken for different medical reasons.

Design: An area based index was used to assign socieconomic status (SES; four levels defined) to 3141 women (aged 35 years or older) who underwent a hysterectomy in 1997 and were residing in Rome. Data were taken from hospital discharge records. Direct age standardised hospitalisation rates by SES level were calculated for overall hysterectomies and for those performed for either malignant or non-malignant causes. Statistical differences were detected using the ratios of standardised rates and the test for linear trend.

Main results: The hysterectomy rate was 36.7 per 10 000 women aged 35 years or more. Hysterectomy for uterine leiomyoma accounted for 41% of all operations and was more frequent among women aged 35–49 years than for those aged 50 years or more (crude rates: 28.6 and 7.7 per 10 000, respectively). The risk of hysterectomy was 35% higher for the lowest SES group, compared with the highest group. No association was found between SES and hysterectomy rates for malignant causes, although less affluent women in age group 35–49 years had 87% higher risk of hysterectomy compared with most affluent women. The inverse association between SES and hysterectomy rates attributable to non-malignant causes was statistically significant for women aged 35–49 years but not for those aged 50 years or more.

Conclusions: The inverse relation between hysterectomy and SES is largely attributable to benign disorders of the uterus, namely leiomyoma and prolapse. More affluent women may have a greater uptake of less invasive techniques for removing uterine leiomyoma compared with less affluent women, who are more likely to undergo unnecessary hysterectomies irrespective of their reproductive age.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (95.1 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Ballard C. A. Therapeutic abortion and sterilization by vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974 Apr 1;118(7):891–896. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(74)90657-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Broder M. S., Kanouse D. E., Mittman B. S., Bernstein S. J. The appropriateness of recommendations for hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Feb;95(2):199–205. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00519-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Burn P., McCall J., Chinn R., Healy J. Embolization of uterine fibroids. Br J Radiol. 1999 Feb;72(854):159–161. doi: 10.1259/bjr.72.854.10365066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carlisle D. M., Valdez R. B., Shapiro M. F., Brook R. H. Geographic variation in rates of selected surgical procedures within Los Angeles County. Health Serv Res. 1995 Apr;30(1):27–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Coulter A. Managing demand at the interface between primary and secondary care. BMJ. 1998 Jun 27;316(7149):1974–1976. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7149.1974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Coulter A., Peto V., Doll H. Patients' preferences and general practitioners' decisions in the treatment of menstrual disorders. Fam Pract. 1994 Mar;11(1):67–74. doi: 10.1093/fampra/11.1.67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Danesh J., Gault S., Semmence J., Appleby P., Peto R. Postcodes as useful markers of social class: population based study in 26 000 British households. BMJ. 1999 Mar 27;318(7187):843–844. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7187.843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Domenighetti G., Casabianca A. Rate of hysterectomy is lower among female doctors and lawyers' wives. BMJ. 1997 May 10;314(7091):1417–1417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7091.1417a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Drug-dependence clinics. Lancet. 1977 Feb 19;1(8008):405–406. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Friedman A. J., Haas S. T. Should uterine size be an indication for surgical intervention in women with myomas? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Mar;168(3 Pt 1):751–755. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(12)90813-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Geronimus A. T., Bound J. Use of census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence from national samples. Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Sep 1;148(5):475–486. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Keskimäki I., Salinto M., Aro S. Private medicine and socioeconomic differences in the rates of common surgical procedures in Finland. Health Policy. 1996 Jun;36(3):245–259. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00816-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Koepsell T. D., Weiss N. S., Thompson D. J., Martin D. P. Prevalence of prior hysterectomy in the Seattle-Tacoma area. Am J Public Health. 1980 Jan;70(1):40–47. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.1.40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kramer M. G., Reiter R. C. Hysterectomy: indications, alternatives and predictors. Am Fam Physician. 1997 Feb 15;55(3):827–834. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Krieger N. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health. 1992 May;82(5):703–710. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.5.703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kritz-Silverstein D., Barrett-Connor E., Wingard D. L. Hysterectomy, oophorectomy, and heart disease risk factors in older women. Am J Public Health. 1997 Apr;87(4):676–680. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.4.676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kuh D., Stirling S. Socioeconomic variation in admission for diseases of female genital system and breast in a national cohort aged 15-43. BMJ. 1995 Sep 30;311(7009):840–843. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7009.840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Law P., Regan L. Interstitial thermo-ablation under MRI guidance for the treatment of fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Aug;12(4):277–282. doi: 10.1097/00001703-200008000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lilford R. J. Hysterectomy: will it pay the bills in 2007? BMJ. 1997 Jan 18;314(7075):160–161. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7075.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Luoto R., Kaprio J., Reunanen A., Rutanen E. M. Cardiovascular morbidity in relation to ovarian function after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Apr;85(4):515–522. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(94)00456-N. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Luoto R., Keskimäki 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 Feb;51(1):67–73. doi: 10.1136/jech.51.1.67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Marks N. F., Shinberg D. S. Socioeconomic status differences in hormone therapy. Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Sep 15;148(6):581–593. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Materia E., Spadea T., Rossi L., Cesaroni G., Areà M., Perucci C. A. Diseguaglianze nell'assistenza sanitaria: ospedalizzazione e posizione socioeconomica a Roma. Epidemiol Prev. 1999 Jul-Sep;23(3):197–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Michelozzi P., Perucci C. A., Forastiere F., Fusco D., Ancona C., Dell'Orco V. Inequality in health: socioeconomic differentials in mortality in Rome, 1990-95. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Nov;53(11):687–693. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.11.687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rein M. S., Barbieri R. L., Friedman A. J. Progesterone: a critical role in the pathogenesis of uterine myomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jan;172(1 Pt 1):14–18. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(95)90077-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Scialli A. R. Alternatives to hysterectomy for benign conditions. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 1998 Jul-Aug;43(4):186–191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Settnes A., Jorgensen T. Hysterectomy in a Danish cohort. Prevalence, incidence and socio-demographic characteristics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996 Mar;75(3):274–280. doi: 10.3109/00016349609047101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Settnes A., Lange A. P., Jørgensen T. Gynaecological correlates of hysterectomy in Danish women. Int J Epidemiol. 1997 Apr;26(2):364–370. doi: 10.1093/ije/26.2.364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Smith G. D., Neaton J. D., Wentworth D., Stamler R., Stamler J. Socioeconomic differentials in mortality risk among men screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: I. White men. Am J Public Health. 1996 Apr;86(4):486–496. doi: 10.2105/ajph.86.4.486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Treloar S. A., Do K. A., O'Connor V. M., O'Connor D. T., Yeo M. A., Martin N. G. Predictors of hysterectomy: an Australian study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Apr;180(4):945–954. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70666-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Tulandi T., al-Took S. Endoscopic myomectomy. Laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1999 Mar;26(1):135-48, viii. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8545(05)70063-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Vessey M. P., Villard-Mackintosh L., McPherson K., Coulter A., Yeates D. The epidemiology of hysterectomy: findings in a large cohort study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992 May;99(5):402–407. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13758.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES