C Adams1, S Cannell. 1. Center for the Study of Women in Society, University of Oregon, Eugene 97403, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess women's beliefs about natural hormones, including what they believe the term "natural" means, and their beliefs about the risks, side effects, and efficacy of natural hormone replacement compared to standard hormone replacement. DESIGN: Eighty-two women completed a 20-item survey available at a local compounding pharmacy. Respondents were white (100%), middle-aged (mean age, 47.22 years), and college educated (95.1%); 32.9% were perimenopausal, and 50.0% were postmenopausal; 58.5% were currently using hormone replacement therapy and, of those, 77.1% were using human bio-identical hormones. RESULTS: Ninety percent of the respondents ( n = 74) reported that they had heard about natural hormones. Of those, most believed natural meant plant-derived (44.6%) and/or not synthesized or made without chemicals (50.0%). Most reported hearing about natural hormones from a healthcare provider (66.2%) and/or magazines and books (55.4%). When compared with standard hormone replacement, most respondents endorsed the beliefs that natural hormones have fewer or no risks (71.4%), have fewer or no side effects (69.0%), and are equally or more effective for managing menopause symptoms (61.8%). In addition, many endorsed the beliefs that natural hormone replacement is equally or more effective than standard hormone replacement for protection against osteoporosis (47.1%) and heart disease (40.0%), although many endorsed "don't know" for bone (45.7%) and heart (54.3%) protection. CONCLUSIONS: Among women responding to a survey in a compounding pharmacy, most believed that, compared with standard hormones, natural hormones are safer, cause fewer side effects, and are equally or more effective for symptom management. Many believed natural hormone replacement is equally or more effective for long-term bone and heart protection. Educating women on the nature, risks, and benefits of natural hormone therapy is recommended.
OBJECTIVE: To assess women's beliefs about natural hormones, including what they believe the term "natural" means, and their beliefs about the risks, side effects, and efficacy of natural hormone replacement compared to standard hormone replacement. DESIGN: Eighty-two women completed a 20-item survey available at a local compounding pharmacy. Respondents were white (100%), middle-aged (mean age, 47.22 years), and college educated (95.1%); 32.9% were perimenopausal, and 50.0% were postmenopausal; 58.5% were currently using hormone replacement therapy and, of those, 77.1% were using human bio-identical hormones. RESULTS: Ninety percent of the respondents ( n = 74) reported that they had heard about natural hormones. Of those, most believed natural meant plant-derived (44.6%) and/or not synthesized or made without chemicals (50.0%). Most reported hearing about natural hormones from a healthcare provider (66.2%) and/or magazines and books (55.4%). When compared with standard hormone replacement, most respondents endorsed the beliefs that natural hormones have fewer or no risks (71.4%), have fewer or no side effects (69.0%), and are equally or more effective for managing menopause symptoms (61.8%). In addition, many endorsed the beliefs that natural hormone replacement is equally or more effective than standard hormone replacement for protection against osteoporosis (47.1%) and heart disease (40.0%), although many endorsed "don't know" for bone (45.7%) and heart (54.3%) protection. CONCLUSIONS: Among women responding to a survey in a compounding pharmacy, most believed that, compared with standard hormones, natural hormones are safer, cause fewer side effects, and are equally or more effective for symptom management. Many believed natural hormone replacement is equally or more effective for long-term bone and heart protection. Educating women on the nature, risks, and benefits of natural hormone therapy is recommended.
Authors: Ana Marcia I S Gaudard; Sulani Silva de Souza; Maria E S Puga; Jane Marjoribanks; Edina M K da Silva; Maria R Torloni Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-08-01
Authors: Bahram H Arjmandi; Edralin A Lucas; Dania A Khalil; Latha Devareddy; Brenda J Smith; Jennifer McDonald; Andrea B Arquitt; Mark E Payton; Claudia Mason Journal: Nutr J Date: 2005-02-23 Impact factor: 3.271