Cross-sectional analysis identifies risk factors linked to distress and symptoms in women with GSM, suggesting enhanced patient education and healthcare support is needed.
A high percentage of women who undergo the transition to postmenopause experience both menopausal symptoms and genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). However, GSM is often underdiagnosed. This research aims to identify risk factors that may influence the number of GSM symptoms and whether they cause distress in Taiwanese women > 45 years of age who experienced at least one GSM symptom. Data were collected using a self‐developed questionnaire, the Taiwanese Greene Climacteric Scale, and the Genitourinary Symptoms Scale. Participants reported a low frequency and low level of distress related to menopause symptoms (14.33 ± 9.12; 10.75 ± 10.01, respectively) with an average of 3.64 genitourinary symptoms experienced. The majority of participants (59.7%) reported experiencing distress regarding GSM. Multivariate analyses indicated that the distress level of menopause symptoms ( p < 0.001), distress caused by genitourinary symptoms ( p < 0.001), BMI > 24.0 kg/m 2 ( p = 0.034) and seeking medical consultation for incontinence ( p < 0.001) were significantly associated with the number of genitourinary symptoms. Notably, a higher level of distress regarding menopause symptoms ( p = 0.022), a greater number of genitourinary symptoms ( p < 0.001), and having sought medical consultation due to genitourinary symptoms ( p = 0.007) were significantly associated with experiencing distress caused by genitourinary symptoms. This study highlights the importance of patient education, proactive discussions, and addressing barriers to healthcare and cultural factors in GSM management. Healthcare professionals might consider providing additional assessments for GSM in older women who are admitted to the hospital for other diseases and highlight the distress caused by genitourinary symptoms, as GSM is frequently underreported yet treatable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Su et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: