Estimating perimenstrual distress: a comparison of two methods

Area of Science:

• Gynecology
• Psychology
• Women's Health

Background:

• Menstrual distress is a common experience affecting women's well-being.
• Accurate measurement of menstrual symptoms is crucial for research and clinical practice.
• Existing methods may be subject to biases, impacting data reliability.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the accuracy of two distinct methods for quantifying menstrual distress.
• To evaluate the extent of discrepancies in symptom reporting between daily diaries and retrospective questionnaires.
• To identify specific symptoms most affected by measurement methodology.

Main Methods:

• Seventy-three women (18-35 years) participated over two months.
• Participants maintained daily symptom diaries.
• Retrospective Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) completion followed the diary period.

Main Results:

• The Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) consistently yielded higher symptom estimates than daily diaries.
• Significant discrepancies were observed for water retention and negative affect symptoms.
• Concordance was statistically significant only for menstrual cramps and premenstrual backache.

Conclusions:

• Retrospective recall, influenced by menstrual stereotypes and bias, affects symptom reporting.
• Daily diaries may offer more reliable data for certain menstrual distress symptoms.
• Future research should account for potential biases in retrospective menstrual distress assessment.