AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of obesity among adult women in Selangor and to determine factors associated with obesity among these women.
METHODS: This community based cross sectional study was conducted in Selangor in January 2004. Multi stage stratified proportionate to size sampling method was used. Women aged 20-59 years old were included in this study. Data was collected using a questionnaire-guided interview method. The questionnaire consisted of questions on socio-demographic (age, ethnicity, religion, education level, occupation, monthly income, marital status), Obstetric & Gynaecology history, body mass index (BMI), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).
RESULTS: Out of 1032 women, 972 agreed to participate in this study, giving a response rate of 94.2%. The mean age was 37.91 +/- 10.91. The prevalence of obesity among the respondents was 16.7% (mean = 1.83 +/- 0.373). Obesity was found to be significantly associated with age (p = 0.013), ethnicity (p = 0.001), religion (p = 0.002), schooling (p = 0.020), educational level (p = 0.016), marital status (p = 0.001) and the history of suffering a miscarriage within the past 6 months (p = 0.023).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of obesity among adult women in this study was high. This problem needs to be emphasized as the prevalence of obesity keeps increasing, and will continue to worsen unless appropriate preventive measures are taken.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.