PLoS ONE (Jan 2021)

Factors associated with gynaecological morbidities and treatment-seeking behaviour among adolescent girls residing in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, India.

  • Pradeep Kumar,
  • Shobhit Srivastava,
  • Shekhar Chauhan,
  • Ratna Patel,
  • Strong P Marbaniang,
  • Preeti Dhillon

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252521
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 6
p. e0252521

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundGynaecological morbidities are more common than reproductive and contraceptive morbidities and constitute a substantial proportion of disease burden in women. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and factors associated with gynaecological morbidities and the treatment-seeking behaviour among adolescent girls residing in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, India.MethodologyThe study utilized data from the Understanding the Lives of Adolescents and Young Adults (UDAYA) survey with a sample size of 14,625 adolescents girls aged 10-19 years. We defined gynaecological morbidity in dichotomous form, created from five questions on different morbidities. Further, the treatment-seeking behaviour was assessed for reported gynaecological morbidities three months prior to the survey. Univariate and bivariate analysis was used to perform analysis to carve out the preliminary results. Additionally, the study employed the heckprobit selection model, a two-equation model, to identify the determinants of outcome variables.ResultsOverall, about one-fourth (23.6%) of the adolescent girls reported suffering from gynaecological morbidities, and only one-third of them went for treatment. Non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Non-SC/ST) adolescents were significantly less likely to have gynaecological morbidities (β: -0.12; CI: -0.18, -0.06) compared to SC/ST counterparts; however, they were more likely to go for the treatment (β: 0.09; CI: 0.00, 0.19). The adolescents who had 8-9 (β: 0.17; CI: 0.05, 0.29) or ten and above years of education (β: 0.21; CI: 0.09, 0.34) had a higher likelihood of going for the treatment than adolescents with no education. Moreover, adolescents who belonged to rural areas were less likely to go for the treatment of gynaecological morbidities (β: -0.09; CI: -0.17, -0.01) than urban counterparts.ConclusionMulti-pronged interventions are the need of the hour to raise awareness about the healthcare-seeking behaviour for gynaecological morbidities, especially in rural areas. Adolescent girls shall be prioritized as they may lack the knowledge for gynaecological morbidities, and such morbidities may go unnoticed for years. Mobile clinics may be used to disseminate appropriate knowledge among adolescents and screen asymptomatic adolescents for any possible gynaecological morbidity.