Literature DB >> 18480040

Factors associated with obstetrician-gynecologists' response to the Women's Health Initiative trial of combined hormone therapy.

Michael L Power1, Jonathan Baron, Jay Schulkin.   

Abstract

The Women's Health Initiative trial of combined estrogen and progestin (WHI E+P) ended prematurely after preliminary evidence indicated that harms exceeded benefits, with no cardiovascular benefit. There was controversy over the results and the decision to end the trial early, with many obstetrician-gynecologists expressing reservations about the evidence. The Research Department of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists conducted a study regarding the WHI E+P, sending questionnaires to 2500 randomly selected Fellows; 703 Fellows returned usable surveys (28.1%). Despite almost universal awareness of the results of the WHI E+P (> 97%), almost half of the responding physicians did not find the results convincing and disagreed with the decision to stop the trial. In this further examination of the data, we identified characteristics of the respondents who were associated with either accepting or rejecting the WHI E+P. The year residency was completed, the relative importance a respondent attributed to randomized clinical trials (RCTs), concern about harms of action, and opinion of alternative therapies were significant factors. One of 5 respondents found the results convincing and agreed with the decision to end the trial (acceptors). One of 3 respondents did not find the results convincing and disagreed with the decision to end the trial (rejectors). Acceptors had completed residency more recently (1991 v. 1985, P = 0.001), rated evidence from RCTs as more important (P = 0.006), were more concerned with harms of action (22.4% v. 10.6%, P = 0.004), and were more likely to have a favorable opinion of alternative therapies to hormone therapy (64.1% v. 44.4%, P < 0.001).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18480040     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312722

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  6 in total

1.  Self-reported changes in providers' hormone therapy prescribing and counseling practices after the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Susan L Lakey; Susan D Reed; Andrea Z LaCroix; Lou Grothaus; Katherine M Newton
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  The haunting of medical journals: how ghostwriting sold "HRT".

Authors:  Adriane J Fugh-Berman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 11.069

3.  Provider attributes associated with hormone therapy prescribing frequency.

Authors:  Leslie Spangler; Susan D Reed; Larissa Nekhyludov; Louis C Grothaus; Andrea Z LaCroix; Katherine M Newton
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.953

4.  Attitudes of obstetrician-gynecologists toward the evidence from the Women's Health Initiative hormone therapy trials remain generally skeptical.

Authors:  Michael L Power; Britta L Anderson; Jay Schulkin
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Promotional tone in reviews of menopausal hormone therapy after the Women's Health Initiative: an analysis of published articles.

Authors:  Adriane Fugh-Berman; Christina Pike McDonald; Alicia M Bell; Emily Catherine Bethards; Anthony R Scialli
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  Sources of information influencing the state-of-the-science gap in hormone replacement therapy usage.

Authors:  Fiona Chew; Xianwei Wu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.