Characteristics of women diagnosed with endometriosis in England: a decade of diagnoses, 2011-2021

Hannah Bunk,Emma Campbell,Gemma C Sharp,Vahe Nafilyan,Daniel Ayoubkhani,Isobel Ward

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.11.24318835

2024-12-12

Abstract:Introduction Endometriosis is a chronic disease and the second most common gynaecological condition in the UK, affecting approximately 1.5 million women. It is characterised by the growth of endometrial tissue outside the uterus, causing varying symptoms and having far reaching socioeconomic impacts. We utilise population level hospital admissions data and Census 2011 to examine the characteristics of women diagnosed with endometriosis in England. Methods Using a retrospective cohort design, we used Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 2011 and 2021, we linked health data to detailed sociodemographic information from Census 2011, providing individual population-level information on self-reported characteristics. Our outcome of interest was an endometriosis diagnosis in hospital. Our exposures were age on Census Day (five-year age bands), ethnic group, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) decile, household National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC), highest qualification, country of birth, main language, self-reported general health, self-reported disability, rural/urban classification, region, and upper tier local authority (UTLA). We calculated crude and age-standardised rates, and odds of receiving a diagnosis using logistic regression models adjusted sequentially for age and health. Results Our results highlight differences in underlying prevalence of endometriosis by sociodemographic characteristic, as well as capturing differences in access to services for women receiving a diagnosis of endometriosis in an NHS hospital. The likelihood of receiving an endometriosis diagnosis was highest in the "White British", "Black Caribbean" and "Mixed White and Black Caribbean" ethnic groups, and lowest in the "Chinese", "Arab" and "Black African" ethnic groups. Women living in the most and least deprived areas were least likely to have an endometriosis diagnosis, possibly reflecting lower access to healthcare services in the most deprived group and more use of private healthcare in the least deprived group. Women self-reporting to be in bad health, or disabled, were more likely to have had an endometriosis diagnosis compared those in very good health or non-disabled women, respectively. Conclusions Our results demonstrate significant sociodemographic differences between groups of women receiving an endometriosis diagnosis in England. These results should be used to inform healthcare policies to better support groups of women who are most affected by endometriosis and barriers to receiving a diagnosis. Subsequent work should explore presentations in primary care, as well as the broader socioeconomic ramifications of endometriosis.