ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Do Patients Seek Women-Centered Cardiac Care? Patient Experience of an All-Female Multidisciplinary Heart Center for Women.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Cardiovascular disease in women is frequently under-diagnosed and under-treated. Numerous heart centers for women have opened throughout the world to address these disparities; however, there is a paucity of data regarding participants' perspectives. The current study assesses motivation to participate and perceived benefits in attending a heart center for women (HCW) in Jerusalem, Israel. Methods: This study utilized qualitative methods to assess patients' motivation and perceived benefits to attending a women's heart center, particularly as they relate to gender medicine and single-sex staffing. A random sample of 42 clinic patients were asked to participate in interviews. Inclusionary criteria consisted of previous cardiovascular event, active cardiac symptom or three or more cardiovascular disease risk factors. Exclusionary criteria consisted of pregnancy, type 1 diabetes requiring insulin, psychiatric diagnosis that precluded participation, dementia, or other multidisciplinary clinic participation. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data analysis followed Braun and Clarke's methodology of thematic analysis. Results: The single-sex and gender medicine aspects did not motivate women to attend the HCW, although some participants perceived this as beneficial in retrospect. Women reported that the clinic visit enhanced their knowledge and awareness of issues related to heart disease in women as well as personal health benefits. They reported benefitting from the holistic approach, consideration of their lifestyle, the staff's expression of concern, personalized attention, common language, and feeling understood. Conclusion: This study describes the patient experience in an all-female HCW, highlighting their motivation for attendance and perceived benefits. While they did not actively seek women-centered care, women reported educational and care provision benefits to their attendance. The care attributes that women identified as beneficial typify the person-centered approach to care. These findings may inform both the design and evaluation of medical care facilities that aim to address the sex and gender disparities in cardiology as well as other medical specialties.
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.