ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2007
Do Finnish women using hormone replacement therapy need more information about risks.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Internet Use for Obtaining Medicine Information: Cross-sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Self-reported medication information needs among medication users in a general population aged 40 years and above - the Tromsø study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Trends in the receipt of medicines information among Finnish adults in 1999-2014: a nationwide repeated cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Pharmacy Customers' Experiences With Electronic Prescriptions: Cross-Sectional Survey on Nationwide Implementation in Finland.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Information sources used by women in Finland who use hormonal contraceptives.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2010Article
- Hormonal contraceptive users' self-reported benefits, adverse reactions, and fears in 2001 and 2007.The patient · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn 1998, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002 and the Million Women Study (MWS) in 2003 have shown a need for re-evaluation of the benefits and adverse reactions of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Consequently the authorities in Europe and USA have issued new recommendations against the use of HRT. The aim of this study was to examine women's perceptions of HRT since the publication of the Women's Health Initiative study and the Million Women Study, and the kind of sources women use to obtain information about HRT.
methodThe data was collected with questionnaire survey in the autumn 2003 among 315 women using HRT.
resultsOne third of the respondents (35%) had experienced fears concerning HRT use, and more than half (52%) reported that the debate in the media had markedly influenced them; they have experienced fears or worries, considered discontinuation or discussed with the physician. Whereas the most common source of information concerning the benefits of HRT was the physician (74%), the most common source of information concerning the risks of HRT was the media (78%).
conclusionThis study shows that women using HRT should get more information about the risks from health care professionals. Physicians and pharmacists have an opportunity to alleviate fears and to help women to critically evaluate the information they get from the media. Such discussions are also important to women who have been using HRT for years.
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.