Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care ; 28(2): 125-131, 2023 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36971323

RESUMO

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the experience and satisfaction with contraceptives and use of Combined Oral Contraceptives (COC) by women and compare their perceptions with those of gynaecologists. METHODS: This was a multicentre survey study conducted in Portugal, during April and May, 2021 with women using contraceptives and gynaecologists. Online quantitative questionnaires were carried out. RESULTS: A total of 1508 women and 100 gynaecologists were included. Cycle control was the pill non-contraceptive benefit most valued by gynaecologists and women. For gynaecologists, the main pill concern was the risk of thromboembolic events, but they believed that weight gain was the main concern for their patients. The pill was the most used contraceptive (70%) and women were largely (92%) satisfied. The pill was associated with health risks for 85% of users, mainly thrombosis (83%), weight gain (47%), and cancer (37%). The attributes of the pill most valued by women are contraceptive efficacy (82%), followed by low risk of thromboembolic events (68%), good cycle control (60%), non-interference with libido and mood (59%) and weight (53%). CONCLUSION: Most women use contraceptive pills and are generally satisfied with their contraceptive. Cycle control was the most valued non-contraceptive benefit for gynaecologists and women, agreeing with physicians' beliefs about women. On the other hand, contrary to physicians' beliefs, that women's main concern is weight gain, women are mainly concerned with risks associated with contraceptives. Thromboembolic events are women's and gynaecologists most valued risk. Finally, this study indicates the need for physicians to better understand what COC users really fear.


Comparing women's perceptions with those of gynaecologists regarding Combined Oral Contraceptives, this study showed that contrary to physicians' beliefs, that women's main concern is weight gain, their main concern are risks associated with contraceptives. So, physicians need to better understand what women really fear.


Assuntos
Anticoncepção , Anticoncepcionais Orais Combinados , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Dispositivos Anticoncepcionais , Aumento de Peso , Percepção
2.
Maturitas ; 166: 65-85, 2022 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36081216

RESUMO

This project aims to develop eligibility criteria for menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). The tool should be similar to those already established for contraception A consortium of scientific societies coordinated by the Spanish Menopause Society met to formulate recommendations for the use of MHT by women with medical conditions based on the best available evidence. The project was developed in two phases. As a first step, we conducted 14 systematic reviews and 32 metanalyses on the safety of MHT (in nine areas: age, time of menopause onset, treatment duration, women with thrombotic risk, women with a personal history of cardiovascular disease, women with metabolic syndrome, women with gastrointestinal diseases, survivors of breast cancer or of other cancers, and women who smoke) and on the most relevant pharmacological interactions with MHT. These systematic reviews and metanalyses helped inform a structured process in which a panel of experts defined the eligibility criteria according to a specific framework, which facilitated the discussion and development process. To unify the proposal, the following eligibility criteria have been defined in accordance with the WHO international nomenclature for the different alternatives for MHT (category 1, no restriction on the use of MHT; category 2, the benefits outweigh the risks; category 3, the risks generally outweigh the benefits; category 4, MHT should not be used). Quality was classified as high, moderate, low or very low, based on several factors (including risk of bias, inaccuracy, inconsistency, lack of directionality and publication bias). When no direct evidence was identified, but plausibility, clinical experience or indirect evidence were available, "Expert opinion" was categorized. For the first time, a set of eligibility criteria, based on clinical evidence and developed according to the most rigorous methodological tools, has been defined. This will provide health professionals with a powerful decision-making tool that can be used to manage menopausal symptoms.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Terapia de Reposição de Estrogênios , Menopausa , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias da Mama/induzido quimicamente , Terapia de Reposição de Estrogênios/efeitos adversos , Pessoal de Saúde , Sociedades Científicas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA