OBJECTIVE: To examine how women gather, evaluate, and use information on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) options for managing menopausal symptoms. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Calgary, Alta. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two women with a mean age of 52 years (range 42 to 58 years) who sought information on CAM therapies to manage menopausal symptoms. METHOD: In-depth semistructured interviews. Category coding and thematic analysis were used to interpret the data. MAIN FINDINGS: Four major themes emerged: how women gathered information, how they evaluated the information, how they used the information, and the challenges they experienced in making informed decisions. Information gathering was an on going process; as women's symptoms changed, their information needs changed also. Their preferred sources of information included physicians, CAM practitioners, staff at health food stores, and personal contacts. They sought information about the process of menopause and about both CAM and conventional treatments. Study participants were highly educated. Most of them systematically evaluated information from many sources using such criteria as whether information was biased, where the information came from, and whether the information was current. Information was used to validate their symptoms and to choose treatment based on cost-benefit analysis, risk-benefit analysis, and possible negative side effects or interactions between medications. Finding reliable information was considered a challenge due to structural or information-related barriers. Several of the women cited a lack of time as a challenge: time to search for and evaluate information and the pressure of time to find relief from the symptoms of menopause. CONCLUSION: There is a need for reliable information about menopause and the risks and benefits of CAM options for menopausal symptoms in a format accessible to the range of women who will experience or are experiencing this transition. As a trusted source, family physicians have a role in disseminating this information.
OBJECTIVE: To examine how women gather, evaluate, and use information on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) options for managing menopausal symptoms. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Calgary, Alta. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two women with a mean age of 52 years (range 42 to 58 years) who sought information on CAM therapies to manage menopausal symptoms. METHOD: In-depth semistructured interviews. Category coding and thematic analysis were used to interpret the data. MAIN FINDINGS: Four major themes emerged: how women gathered information, how they evaluated the information, how they used the information, and the challenges they experienced in making informed decisions. Information gathering was an on going process; as women's symptoms changed, their information needs changed also. Their preferred sources of information included physicians, CAM practitioners, staff at health food stores, and personal contacts. They sought information about the process of menopause and about both CAM and conventional treatments. Study participants were highly educated. Most of them systematically evaluated information from many sources using such criteria as whether information was biased, where the information came from, and whether the information was current. Information was used to validate their symptoms and to choose treatment based on cost-benefit analysis, risk-benefit analysis, and possible negative side effects or interactions between medications. Finding reliable information was considered a challenge due to structural or information-related barriers. Several of the women cited a lack of time as a challenge: time to search for and evaluate information and the pressure of time to find relief from the symptoms of menopause. CONCLUSION: There is a need for reliable information about menopause and the risks and benefits of CAM options for menopausal symptoms in a format accessible to the range of women who will experience or are experiencing this transition. As a trusted source, family physicians have a role in disseminating this information.
Authors: Bruce Barrett; Lucille Marchand; Jo Scheder; Mary Beth Plane; Rob Maberry; Diane Appelbaum; David Rakel; David Rabago Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Bradford W Hesse; David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Robert T Croyle; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005 Dec 12-26
Authors: JoAnn E Manson; Judith Hsia; Karen C Johnson; Jacques E Rossouw; Annlouise R Assaf; Norman L Lasser; Maurizio Trevisan; Henry R Black; Susan R Heckbert; Robert Detrano; Ora L Strickland; Nathan D Wong; John R Crouse; Evan Stein; Mary Cushman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lynda G Balneaves; Dimitra Panagiotoglou; Alison S A Brazier; Leah K Lambert; Antony Porcino; Margaret Forbes; Cheri Van Patten; Tracy L O Truant; Dugald Seely; Dawn Stacey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.603