OBJECTIVE: Premature ovarian failure is a disease with many far reaching and serious consequences. Little is known about the complete etiology of the disease or what women may be at an increased risk for developing it. We sought to evaluate the prevalence of premature ovarian failure among women born in the United States and women not born in the United States who were patients of Boston Medical Center. We compared the prevalence of POF in these two groups to evaluate any relationships that may exist between birthplace and premature ovarian failure. METHODS: We collected data from the data warehouse of Boston Medical Center. We used data from women who had an FSH test done between the ages of 18 and 40 before June 30, 2013 as the control. We also compiled data of women who had an FSH level over 15mIU/ml as well as those who had diagnoses in SDK and Logician. Birthplaces data was also compiled for those women who had an FSH level>15mIU/ml. RESULTS: Women born outside of the U.S had a slightly higher prevalence of POF when compared to women born in the United States. Data analysis showed a significant difference among the two groups with p<0.0001 for each group. When birthplace data was compiled, Haiti had the highest number of women with FSH>15mIU/ml with Cape Verde and the Dominican Republic having the next highest amounts of women. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the possible relationship that exists between premature ovarian failure and birthplace. This was a preliminary study to gather data that may be used in future, more specific studies to be done on the topic. These future studies should further investigate the reason this relationship exists, other causes that may be associated with premature ovarian failure, and further analysis of the prevalence of POF in various areas of the world.

The description and interpretation of Latinas’ experience with chemotherapyinduced premature menopause from breast cancer treatment were explored in this study, which utilized an interpretive descriptive method from a feminist lens, and Knobf’s (1998, 2002) “Carrying on” theory. The specific aims of the study and the interview questions were guided by the state of the science literature. Overall, the impact of physiological effects, psychosocial effects, barriers, influencing factors that made their experience easier or harder, and how participants adjusted to a cancer diagnosis, treatment course, and menopause transition were described as bigger than the menopause experience alone. Participants also described a period of uncertainty or “ever-changing landscape” that began at the time of diagnosis and continued through survivorship. The impact of information, access to healthcare, acculturation levels, support, and a sense of control were elucidated as important factors in “working through” the experience. A range of collateral data sources were employed. Study limitations and future implications for practice, research, and health policy were demarcated.