1
En 19?4.Our sample size was too small to analyze this in relation to background characteristics to explain the variation. The results of the longitudinal analysis (comparing the same women over time) and those of the cross-sectional analysis showed relatively similar results. Thus, we can interpret the cross-sectional data as generally summing up the experience of all women throughout the followup
1
Ccuracy. In order to protect the confidentiality of the information, names were not included in the written questionnaires. The content validity of questionnaire was determined by a panel of five experts of different specializations. Experts' comments were taken into consideration in modification and revision. These experts generally agreed that the questionnaire was appropriately designed and dev
1
Fferent surveys using the date of filling in the questionnaire. We then grouped the surveys as follows: 6?8 months = 1-year follow-up, 19?8 months = 2-year follow-up, 29?2 months = 3year follow-up, 43?9 months =4-year follow-up. Women who left one or more follow-up surveys unanswered formed a separate group (intermittent surveys). We classified women into those who had or had not had symptoms in t
1
Le included women in contact with the hospitals due to reproductive health problems or their accompanied women. Of the 840 women recruited, 800 (95.2 ) answered the questionnaire and 40 (4.8 ) refused to answer. Characteristics of these 800 participants are shown in Table 1.MeasuresA modified version of the questionnaire designed for the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic viole
1
T least one of these symptoms was said to be bothersome,Hemminki et al. BMC Women's Health 2012, 12:44 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/12/Page 3 ofthe woman was categorized as having bothersome symptoms of that group.Table 2 Proportions ( ) of women with vasomotor symptoms and bothersome symptoms1 in past two weeks, at each survey (cross-sectional analysis)Recruitment Women
1
Uch as the McGill Nausea Questionnaire [9], The Fatigue System Checklist (FSC) [10], Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [11], ICIQ-SF (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form) [12] and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) [13]. While these instruments may be helpful in identifying particular symptoms they do not allow the examination of all potential symptoms and it i
1
To carry out the study. A verbal informed consent was obtained from each participant. The guidelines of the WHO including the importance of ensuring confidentiality and privacy were followed [13].Statistical analysisThis cross-sectional study was conducted in Erbil city between the 1st of October 2009 and the 30th of March 2011. A convenience sample of 800 Kurdish women aged 16?5 years attending t
1
Ses, it was made sure that each woman was interviewed only once. A pilot study was conducted on 35 women aiming at determining the clarity and the content adequacy of the questionnaire. It also helped in estimating the time required for the data collection and identifying the limitations that might be encountered during data collection. However, this group of women was excluded from the study samp