How well do different measurement modalities estimate the number of vasomotor symptoms? Findings from the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation FLASHES Study

and 4Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) (Impact Factor: 3.36). 07/2013; 21(2). DOI: 10.1097/GME.0b013e318295a3b9
Source: PubMed


Studies of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) typically measure VMS via daily diaries completed at the end of the day. VMS can also be measured via diaries completed throughout the day or via physiological monitors-modalities with lower recall demands. We examined the degree of correspondence between three VMS measurement modalities: retrospective end-of-day/morning diaries, prospective reporting, and physiological monitoring. We determined whether discrepancies between measurement modalities varied by participant characteristics.
Twenty-five African-American women and 27 white women from the Pittsburgh site of the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation who were experiencing VMS, had intact uterus and ovaries, and were free of medications affecting VMS underwent 4 days of ambulatory VMS and Actiwatch monitoring. VMS were recalled in end-of-day and morning diaries, reported prospectively during the day, and measured physiologically via a hot flash monitor. Associations between anxiety, sleep, or race/ethnicity and VMS measurement modality difference scores were examined using generalized estimating equations.
Women underestimated the number of daytime VMS at the end of the day as compared with VMS that were prospectively reported or physiologically measured throughout the day. This pattern was particularly pronounced among African-American women (b [SE] = -3.01 [0.93], P = 0.001) and women with higher anxiety (b [SE] = -3.13 [1.53], P = 0.04). For nighttime VMS, women overestimated the number of VMS in the morning upon waking as compared with prospective measures, particularly if they had poorer sleep (higher wakening after sleep onset: b [SE] = 0.03 [0.008], P = 0.001).
Different measurement modalities yield different VMS estimates. Negative affect, sleep, and race/ethnicity may affect the recall of VMS.

Download full-text


Available from: Rebecca C Thurston, Oct 01, 2015
1 Follower
32 Reads
  • Menopause (New York, N.Y.) 01/2014; 21(2). DOI:10.1097/GME.0000000000000185 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Menopause (New York, N.Y.) 02/2014; 21(4). DOI:10.1097/GME.0000000000000217 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Perception of physical symptoms is an important factor in medical help-seeking. We aimed to examine both physiological and subjective measures of a commonly reported physical symptom-vasomotor symptoms (hot flushes and night sweats; HF/NS), and to investigate factors that might influence symptom perception, that is, concordance, over-reporting, and under-reporting of symptoms in healthy menopausal women. One hundred and forty women completed questionnaires assessing depressed mood, anxiety, stress, somatic symptoms, beliefs about HF/NS, and somatic amplification. Subjective and objective (24-h sternal skin conductance) measurements of HF/NS were obtained to assess concordance. Thirty-seven percent of HF/NS were concordant while 47 and 16 % were under-reported and over-reported, respectively. Depressed mood, anxiety, somatic symptoms, and negative beliefs about HF/NS were associated with (higher) concordance, (less) under-, or (more) over-reporting. Negative beliefs about night sweats and sleep were the strongest predictors of concordance, whereas additional somatic symptoms and smoking predicted over-reporting. Just over one third of physiologically recorded HF/NS were perceived as hot flushes; under-reporting of symptoms was more common than over-reporting. Interestingly, women who were more accurate in detecting physiological HF/NS tended to report more psychological and somatic symptoms and negative beliefs about HF/NS. Both measures should be included as outcomes of clinical trials. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Human Biology 05/2014; 26(3). DOI:10.1002/ajhb.22530 · 1.70 Impact Factor
Show more