Background and Objectives: Vaginitis is probably the most common infection among all gynecological infections effecting half of all women. It is escalating worldwide and complicates the diagnosis. Several risk factors have been associated with prevalence of vaginitis. · The aim of the study is to measure the prevalence of Vaginitis, various types of vaginitis and identify the risk factors. · The objectives of the study are to create community awareness on Vaginitis and to train the patient about the preventive measures related to vaginal infection and genital hygiene to inhibit the recurrent episodes and chronicity of the disease Material and Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the prevalence and associated among different types of vaginitis and risk factors in reproductive aged woman visiting NIZAMIA GENERAL HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD, Telangana. for complaints of vaginal discharge. Data on risk factors was collected through self designed structure questionnaire. Diagnosis based on Amsels criteria and vaginal swabs were examined using microbiological technics. Data were analyzed using different tests of descriptive statistics. Result: The Prevalence of vaginitis among 214 patients was 9.16%. Out of which 110(51.4%) bacterial vaginosis (BV) ,8(3.7%) Trichomoniasis (TV), 96(44.9%) Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) respectively. Major pathogens included Escherichia coli, gardnerella vaginalis, trichomonas vaginalis and candida albicans. Overall, 51.4% patients had BV. BV and VVC were associated with history of miscarriage, low socio-economic conditions diabetes, and BV is the predominant cause of vaginitis. Conclusion: The data obtained suggest that the prevalence rate of Bacterial vaginosis is relatively high, candida albicans was the most common fungal species causing VVC and trichomonas vaginalis prevalence was underestimated using wet mounts. It could be affected by hygiene behavior and certain sociodemographic characteristics which indicate the need for comprehensive, scheduled of health care education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
BATOOL et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: