There are three main ways of measuring gynaecological morbidity: clinical examinations by trained medical practitioners, laboratory tests on biological specimens such as blood and urine, and questioning individuals or groups about their perceptions and experiences of illness. Clinical and laboratory approaches have been addressed in Chapters 8, 9 and 10. The central purpose of Chapters 11, 12 and 13 is to assess the role of the third approach to the measurement of gynaecological morbidity, its causes and consequences. The focus of this chapter is on structured interview surveys.

Interview surveys on health have been a familiar form of enquiry for decades. Many lessons have been learnt about their utility and limitations, and about measurement issues. Much of this experience is relevant to the design of surveys on gynaecological morbidity in low-income countries. Accordingly, this chapter starts with a summary of these lessons and the application of the survey method to two important dimensions of gynaecological morbidity – reproductive tract infections and menstrual dysfunction. These two morbidities have been chosen because they are the most prevalent gynaecological problems that women of reproductive age face, if not the most serious. As will become apparent, menstrual dysfunction lends itself well to investigation by the survey method and there is a growing body of experience upon which to draw. Conversely, the study of reproductive tract infections by surveys is relatively recent and has encountered serious problems