liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Risk communication in consultations about hormone therapy in the menopause: concordance in risk assessment and framing due to the context
Linköping University, Department of Medicine and Care, Clinical Pharmacology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.
Linköping University, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Obstetrics and gynecology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. The Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2764-3095
Linköping University, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Obstetrics and gynecology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.
Show others and affiliations
2006 (English)In: Climacteric, ISSN 1369-7137, E-ISSN 1473-0804, Vol. 9, no 5, 347-354 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND:

It is important for the physician and the patient to have a mutual understanding of the possible consequences of different treatment alternatives in order to achieve a partnership in decision-making.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to explore to which degree first-time consultations for discussion of climacteric discomfort achieved shared understanding of the risks and benefits associated with hormone therapy in the menopausal transition.

METHODS:

Analysis of structure and content of transcribed consultations (n = 20), and follow-up interviews of the women (n = 19 pairs of consultations and interviews), from first-time visits for discussion of climacteric discomfort and/or HT with five physicians at three different outpatient clinics of gynecology in Sweden.

RESULTS:

Four distinctively different interpretations of risk, depending on whether or not benefits were discussed in the same context, emerged from the analysis. On average, five advantages (range 0-11) and two (0-3) disadvantages were mentioned during the consultations. In the interviews, the women expressed on average four advantages (0-7) and one disadvantage (0-3). There were major variations between advantages and disadvantages expressed in the consultation and the following interview.

CONCLUSION:

Even though the consultations scored high in patient involvement, the information in most consultations was not structured in a way that made it possible to achieve a shared or an informed decision-taking.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Informa Healthcare, 2006. Vol. 9, no 5, 347-354 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-101519DOI: 10.1080/13697130600870220PubMedID: 17000583OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-101519DiVA: diva2:666442
Available from: 2013-11-22 Created: 2013-11-22 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Hoffmann, MikaelHammar, MatsKjellgren, KarinLindh-Åstrand, LottaAhlner, Johan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hoffmann, MikaelHammar, MatsKjellgren, KarinLindh-Åstrand, LottaAhlner, Johan
By organisation
Clinical PharmacologyFaculty of Health SciencesObstetrics and gynecology
In the same journal
Climacteric
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 69 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf