# Urinary Tract Infections Among Deployed Women



## AWP (Oct 15, 2012)

This bothers me on many, many levels.

1) It is enough of a problem to warrant an article.
2) It is enough of a problem to warrant a Task Force.
3) It is enough of a problem to warrant self-diagnosis kits.
4) (Here comes the hate) Women want to serve, particularly in forward areas, but don't wish to discuss medical issues with medics or their CoC?
5) Nearly half of the women surveyed had UTIs or vaginitis while deployed and 8 out of 9 reported complications with menstration.

Ladies, I've tried to be in your corner over the issue of women in combat while recognizing the physical differences between men and women, but damn...

The Sisterhood wants to be treated as equals, i.e. wants to go Infantry and everything else....and you can't even take care of yourselves and acknowledge that a certain female issue is exacerbated while deployed? I understand that "nearly half" isn't a majority and that surveys have their own inherent issues, but when you look at "problems" be it mechanical or clinical with people/ medication or any sort of statistical trend, once you pass about 10% you have serious issues. Let's be honest for a moment, this is one of those issues that women in the military should address.

http://www.stripes.com/mobile/news/...ract-infections-among-deployed-women-1.193088



> Nearly half of 850 women surveyed in 2000 for a study of women’s perceptions of their health care while deployed said they’d had symptoms of UTIs or vaginitis while deployed, according to an Army report released by a new task force on women’s health earlier this year. Many of them declined to seek medical treatment, risking complications like kidney disease and pelvic infections.
> Although troubling, the results were not surprising, at least among military experts in women’s health. Prevalent genitourinary problems among deployed women and their difficulties in getting treatment has been documented before.


 
*On an Admin note:* Let's keep this thread professional. The first joke about vaginitis or something similar will result in 24-48 hours on the sidelines.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 15, 2012)

> Nearly half of 850 women *surveyed in 2000*


 
Who was getting "deployed" in 2000?  And what kind of "deployment" was it, that resulted in a sample population large enough to have 850 women take part?  I was in the Army in 2000, and back then the toughest "deployment" you could do (for the most part) was NTC or a trip to the Republic of Korea.  Meaning there were no "deployments" like we think of the word today.  I'd like the authors to produce something more timely.


----------



## reed11b (Oct 15, 2012)

Deployed to a bombed Iraqi Radar station w/ 1 Co of NG MPs and one CO of NG Infantry. Zero hygene facilities till we built them, (The MPs had been there at least a month before us) and saw zero women sent home for "feminine issues". I call BS and bet that the timing of the report is political. Now in Arafjon, where there were a lot of hygene facilities, I did see women sent home for "feminine issues". My theory, treat female service members like delicate princess, and you will get delicate princesses. Treat them as capable and equal and they will meet the expectation.
Reed


----------



## AWP (Oct 15, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Who was getting "deployed" in 2000? And what kind of "deployment" was it, that resulted in a sample population large enough to have 850 women take part? I was in the Army in 2000, and back then the toughest "deployment" you could do (for the most part) was NTC or a trip to the Republic of Korea. Meaning there were no "deployments" like we think of the word today. I'd like the authors to produce something more timely.


 
I saw that too. Considering there was the study listed in 2007 and kits are  being produced it makes me wonder what today's numbers look like. I have a hard time believing that they declined.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 15, 2012)

reed11b, I concur. Nothing like dragging out a 12-year-old study and holding it up like it's the Gospel.

I wonder though if we have gotten better in terms of hygiene, many if not most females are now deployed to locations with running water... because many if not most of the males are too.  We ought to be able to find out pretty easily; they may have the DNBI statistics broken down by male and female, over the total population.  We can at least see the rate of women being evacuated from theater.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 15, 2012)

We have been deploying women in the same conditions as men for decades and in some pretty horrendous places.  I wonder how statistics would compare.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 15, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Who was getting "deployed" in 2000? And what kind of "deployment" was it, that resulted in a sample population large enough to have 850 women take part? I was in the Army in 2000, and back then the toughest "deployment" you could do (for the most part) was NTC or a trip to the Republic of Korea. Meaning there were no "deployments" like we think of the word today. I'd like the authors to produce something more timely.


Bosnia/Kosovo


----------



## pardus (Oct 15, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> We have been deploying women in the same conditions as men for decades and in some pretty horrendous places. I wonder how statistics would compare.


 
I can't speak for the Canadians but generally I've found a lower standard of hygiene in the US Army than in NZ.

I know we dealt with quite a few (not serious) woman's hygiene issues during my deployment but I'd say off the top of my head men with STD's were very common too.
Women are more prone to UTIs simply because of their anatomy. Front to back ladies, front to back


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 15, 2012)

pardus said:


> I can't speak for the Canadians but generally I've found a lower standard of hygiene in the US Army than in NZ.
> 
> I know we dealt with quite a few (not serious) woman's hygiene issues during my deployment but I'd say off the top of my head men with STD's were very common too.
> Women are more prone to UTIs simply because of their anatomy. Front to back ladies, front to back


 
Proper hygiene is a major thing in our military, one of the first things we are taught and it's almost hammered into us 'to death'.  I was thinking that it might have been a hygiene standard issue or STD being reported generically as a UTI; there's a reason free condoms are every where.


----------



## HoosierAnnie (Oct 15, 2012)

As a women's health nurse, citing a 12 yr old study is one of the worse examples of something trying to be evidence based medicine I have ever seen. I agree, comparing a central Europe deployment to either the sandbox of the 'Stan is at best apples to pears. (shusshes the Troll on my potentially mixed metaphor). I'm heading out to look for something a tad more recent.

 And for those wenches who won't talk a health issue to their medic - GROW UP.


----------



## HoosierAnnie (Oct 15, 2012)

OK  try this one. This MUCH more recent study cites a UTI rate of about 10% (3/31) of deployed women. I found slide (yes, its PP - pun kinda intended) #7 interesting as to official preparation pre-deployment. That does not excuse each individual femal service member from waking up and taking care of herself.
http://www.4militarywomen.org/WIM09Presentations/Steele.pdf


----------



## AWP (Oct 15, 2012)

HoosierAnnie said:


> OK try this one. This MUCH more recent study cites a UTI rate of about 10% (3/31) of deployed women. I found slide (yes, its PP - pun kinda intended) #7 interesting as to official preparation pre-deployment. That does not excuse each individual femal service member from waking up and taking care of herself.
> http://www.4militarywomen.org/WIM09Presentations/Steele.pdf


 
Curious that the PI listed in your slide is the one interviewed for the article in my OP and yet the 10% number isn't in the Stripes article. Still, a 10% "failure"/ illness/ whatever rate is hardly something to cheer about. I'd like to see more test groups and their rates, but I would be surprised if it stayed at 10%. Perhaps it wouldn't be as bad as the numbers in the OP, but I'd bet on something higher than 10%.

This is obviously enough of a problem that the Freshette device has an NSN,  4510-01-470-2805 (and if FedLog is correct the Gov't is paying twice what they are worth on the civvie market).


----------



## reed11b (Oct 15, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Still, a 10% "failure"/ illness/ whatever rate is hardly something to cheer about. I'd like to see more test groups and their rates, but I would be surprised if it stayed at 10%.


What do you think the "failure" rate of back/knee injury is in males? Over 10%. The occurrence of an injury does not A) mean the service member in non-functional, or B) mean that it is not an acceptable risk of the job. Lifetime rates for PTSD in ALL high trauma occupations (Combat arms, S&R, Police, Fire, Emergency Medicine, etc) hovers around 30 to 40%. At any given time in these fields the rate is from 5 to 15%. Want to look into the physical injury rates? This is politics pure and simple.
Reed
P.S. before my deployment, I used to preach that women had no place in combat due to the "feminine hygiene" issue.


----------



## pardus (Oct 18, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> Proper hygiene is a major thing in our military, one of the first things we are taught and it's almost hammered into us 'to death'.  I was thinking that it might have been a hygiene standard issue or STD being reported generically as a UTI; there's a reason free condoms are every where.



Yeah, in NZ we we forced to shower 3 times a day during basic training. In the US we were grudgingly allowed one shower daily that had severe time restrictions i.e. 30 second showers, though most showers were about 3 - 5 min long. Then they wondered why people were getting sick all the time.


----------



## Warchief (Oct 18, 2012)

Seriously have to wonder if anyone studying the problem is thinking about how much dehydration or the failure to stay hydrated factors into the increased UTI rate in females. Deployments into arid climates have definitely increased in recent history. Since females have a shorter Urethra in comparison to males it is much easier for infection to travel back into the system. If females are not staying hydrated then they would be less compelled to "wash" out potential infection due to decreased urination.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 19, 2012)

Warchief said:


> Seriously have to wonder if anyone studying the problem is thinking about how much dehydration or the failure to stay hydrated factors into the increased UTI rate in females. Deployments into arid climates have definitely increased in recent history. Since females have a shorter ureter in comparison to males it is much easier for infection to travel back into the system. If females are not staying hydrated then they would be less compelled to "wash" out potential infection due to decreased urination.


 
You sound like a medic....   wonder why?   Excellent points.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 19, 2012)

Warchief said:


> Since females have a shorter ureter in comparison to males...


 
Urethra is the part you were looking for Chief.  The ureters carry urine from the kidneys to the bladder.


----------



## Warchief (Oct 19, 2012)

Edited my post for correctness.  Thanks for the reminder on A&P.


----------

