Abstract
Objective The aims of this cross-sectional, case-controlled, observational study were to examine attitudes toward menstruation in female patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and in a control group, and to explore the associations between attitudes toward menstruation and psychopathology, menstrual regularity during antipsychotic treatment, and menstrual distress symptoms.
Methods Fifty-eight patients treated with anti-psychotic medications for at least the previous 6 months were placed in irregular (irregular menstrual cycle) (n = 31) and regular (regular menstrual cycle) (n = 27) groups. Sixty-two, age-matched, healthy female participants with regular menstrual cycles were enrolled as a control group. Psychopathology was assessed by psychiatrists using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). The Menstrual Attitude Questionnaire (MAQ) was used to assess attitudes toward menstruation, and symptom checklists based on the Moos Menstruation Distress Questionnaire (MMDQ) were used to assess menstrual distress symptoms.
Results Patients with psychotic disorders (both irregular and regular groups) had more negative attitudes toward menstruation than the control group. In the Schizophrenia group, there was no association between the severity of psychotic symptoms and their influence on attitudes toward menstruation. Moreover, regular menstrual cycles during antipsychotic treatment and fewer menstrual distress symptoms were the two main predictors for more positive attitudes toward menstruation in the patient group.
Conclusion This is one of the first studies to explore the relationship between psychotic symptoms and attitudes toward menstruation. The findings provide more support for the assumption that attitudes toward menstruation are derived from a woman’s perception of her bodily experience rather than a psychiatric disorder.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We thank Professor James J. Strain of the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York for his help and excellent comments regarding the revision of this paper.
Conflict of interest The authors report no conflict of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this paper.
Source of funding Nil.