Abstract
Objective: This study investigated Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) frequency and related factors.
Methods: This descriptive and cross-sectional study sample consisted of 391 women aged 15-49 who applied to family medicine outpatient clinics in a rural hospital between 15.12.2019-01.03.2020. Data were collected using the Premenstrual Syndrome Scale (PMSS) and a sociodemographic questionnaire. A score above 50% of the highest possible score means that the person has PMS, while a score below 50% of the highest score means that the person does not have PMS.
Results: The prevalence of PMS was 52.7% in the current study. When the patients are categorized according to their age, 64.9% (n=37) of the patients aged 15-19, 60.9% (n=42) aged 20-24, 71.9% aged 25-29 (n=41), 47.1% (n=41) aged 30-34, 30.4% (n=14) aged 35-39, 35.9% (n=14) aged 40-44, and 47.2% (n=17) of those aged 45-49 were diagnosed with PMS. In the present study, the mean PMS scores of married women were lower than single or widowed women (p<0.001). Those who smoked had irregular menstruation, and those with a psychiatric illness in the last two years had higher PMSS scores (p<0.001, p<0.001 and p=0.010, respectively). Although the PMS score increases as the education level increases, it is not statistically significant (p= 0.517). There was no relationship between income status, residence, age at menarche, tea, coffee, chocolate, dairy products consumption and PMS.
Conclusion: PMS is identified with a frequency of 52.7% among women between the ages of 15-49. While being married is advantageous in PMS, irregular menstrual cycles, painful menstruation, and having a psychiatric illness in the last two years are disadvantages.
Keywords: Premenstrual syndrome, prevalence, women of reproductive age
Copyright and license
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.