OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between condom use and oral contraceptive consumption and the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Perth clinics. A total of 348 women responded to the structured questionnaire. Information sought included demographic and lifestyle characteristics such as the use of condom for contraception, consumption of oral contraceptive, and duration of oral contraceptive usage. Crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using unconditional logistic regression models and reported as estimates of the relative risk. RESULTS: The prevalence of CIN was found to be 15.8%. The duration of oral contraceptive consumption among women with abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) smear result indicating CIN was significantly shorter than those without abnormal Pap smear result (mean+/-SD, 5.6+/-5.2 years vs. 8.2+/-7.6 years; p=0.002). Comparing to < or =3 years usage, prolonged consumption of oral contraceptive for > or =10 years reduced the risk of CIN (p=0.012). However, use of condom for contraception might not be associated with a reduced risk of CIN after accounting for the effects of confounding factors (adjusted OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.05 to 5.11; p=0.577). CONCLUSION: Use of oral contraceptives, but not condoms, for contraception appeared to be inversely associated with CIN. Prolonged use of oral contraceptive demonstrated its benefits of reducing the risk of CIN.
Adult ; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia/epidemiology/*prevention & control ; Condoms/*utilization ; Contraception Behavior/*statistics & numerical data ; Contraceptives, Oral/*administration & dosage ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Drug Administration Schedule ; Drug Utilization/statistics & numerical data ; Female ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Prevalence ; Risk Assessment/methods ; Socioeconomic Factors ; Western Australia/epidemiology

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.