ArticleBMC family practice2006
Hormone therapy after the Women's Health Initiative: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC family practice, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Clinical Meaningfulness of Red Clover (Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- Knowledge, perceptions and information about hormone therapy (HT) among menopausal women: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.PloS one · 2011Pooled it
- "I'm going to stay young": Belief in anti-aging efficacy of menopausal hormone therapy drives prolonged use despite medical risks.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Menopausal hormone therapy trends before versus after 2002: impact of the Women's Health Initiative Study Results.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2018Article
- Item Reduction, Scoring, and First Validation of the ACCEPTance by the Patients of their Treatment (ACCEPT©) Questionnaire.The patient · 2017Article
- Hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive use, and distal large bowel cancer: a population-based case-control study.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublication of results from the Women's Health Initiative study in July 2002 was a landmark event in biomedical science related to postmenopausal women. The purpose of this study was to describe the impact of new hormone therapy recommendations on patients' attitudes and decision-making in a primary care practice.
methodsA questionnaire including structured and open-ended questions was administered in a family practice office waiting room from August through October 2003. Rationale for taking or not taking hormone therapy was specifically sought. Women 50-70 years old attending for office visits were invited to participate. Data were analyzed qualitatively and with descriptive statistics. Chart review provided medication use rates for the entire practice cohort of which the sample was a subset.
resultsRespondents (n = 127) were predominantly white and well educated, and were taking hormone therapy at a higher rate (38%) than the overall rate (26%) for women of the same age range in this practice. Belief patterns about hormone therapy were, in order of frequency, 'use is risky', 'vindication or prior beliefs', 'benefit to me outweighs risk', and 'unaware of new recommendations'. Twenty-eight out of 78 women continued hormones use after July 2002. Of 50 women who initially stopped hormone therapy after July 2002, 12 resumed use. Women who had stopped hormone therapy were a highly symptomatic group. Responses with emotional overtones such as worry, confusion, anger, and grief were common.
conclusionStrategies for decision support about hormone therapy should explicitly take into account women's preferences about symptom relief and the trade-offs among relevant risks. Some women may need emotional support during transitions in hormone therapy use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.