Abstract
Background
The landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy Trial published in 2002 showed that the health risks of combination hormone therapy (HT) with estrogen and progestin outweighed the benefits in healthy postmenopausal women. Dissemination of results had a major impact on prescriptions for, and physician beliefs about HT. No study has fully examined the influence of the widely publicized WHI on physicians’ practice and attitudes or their opinions of the scientific evidence regarding HT; in addition, little is known about how physicians assist women in their decisions regarding HT.
Design and Participants
We conducted in-depth telephone interviews with family practitioners, internists, and gynecologists from integrated health care delivery systems in Washington State (n = 10 physicians) and Massachusetts (n = 12 physicians). Our objectives were to obtain qualitative information from these physicians to understand their perspectives on use of HT, the scientific evidence regarding its risks and benefits, and counseling strategies around HT use and discontinuation.
Approach
We used Template Analysis to code transcribed telephone interviews and identify themes.
Results
Physicians were conflicted about the WHI results and its implications. Seven themes identified from in-depth interviews suggested that the WHI (1) was a ground-breaking study that changed clinical practice, including counseling; (2) was not applicable to the full range of patients seen in clinical practice; (3) raised concerns over the impact of publicized health information on women; (4) created uncertainty about the risks and benefits of HT; (5) called for the use of decision aids; (6) influenced discontinuation strategies; and (7) provided an opportunity to discuss healthy lifestyle options with patients. As a result of the WHI, physicians reported they no longer prescribe HT for prevention and were more likely to suggest discontinuation, although many felt women should be in charge of the HT decision.
Conclusions
Physicians varied in their opinions of HT and the scientific evidence (positive and negative). Whereas the WHI delineated the risks and benefits of HT, physicians reported that decision aids are needed to guide discussions with women about menopause and HT. Better guidance at the time of WHI study publication might have been valuable to ensure best practices.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321–33.
Haas JS, Kaplan CP, Gerstenberger EP, Kerlikowske K. Changes in the use of postmenopausal hormone therapy after the publication of clinical trial results. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(3):184–8.
Hersh AL, Stefanick ML, Stafford RS. National use of postmenopausal hormone therapy: annual trends and response to recent evidence. JAMA. 2004;291(1):47–53.
Kim N, Gross C, Curtis J, et al. The impact of clinical trials on the use of hormone replacement therapy. A population-based study. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(11):1026–31.
Buist DS, Newton KM, Miglioretti DL, et al. Hormone therapy prescribing patterns in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(5 Pt 1):1042–50.
Machens K, Schmidt-Gollwitzer K. Issues to debate on the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study. Hormone replacement therapy: an epidemiological dilemma? Hum Reprod. 2003 Oct;18(10):1992–9.
Hemminki E. Opposition to unpopular research results: Finnish professional reactions to the WHI findings. Health Policy. 2004;69(3):283–91.
Lemay A. The relevance of the Women’s Health Initiative results on combined hormone replacement therapy in clinical practice. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002;24(9):711–5.
Kaplan B, Yogev Y, Orvieto R, Hirsch M, Fisher M, Rabinerson D. Effect of the WHI study on the attitude of Israeli gynecologists to hormonal therapy during menopause. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2004;31(4):267–8.
Williams RS, Christie D, Sistrom C. Assessment of the understanding of the risks and benefits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in primary care physicians. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(2):551–6; discussion 556–8.
Ena G, Rozenberg S. Issues to debate on the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study. Prescription attitudes among Belgian gynecologists after premature discontinuation of the WHI study. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(11):2245–8.
Power ML, Schulkin J, Rossouw JE. Evolving practice patterns and attitudes toward hormone therapy of obstetrician-gynecologists. Menopause. 2007;14(1):20–8.
Brett AS, Carney PI, McKeown RE. Brief report: attitudes toward hormone therapy after the Women’s Health Initiative: a comparison of internists and gynecologists. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(5):416–8.
Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Poindexter AN III. Physicians’ views and practices concerning menopausal hormone therapy. Maturitas. 2007;56(1):30–7.
Nassar AH, Abd Essamad HM, Awwad JT, Khoury NG, Usta IM. Gynecologists' attitudes towards hormone therapy in the post “Women’s Health Initiative” study era. Maturitas. 2005;52(1):18–25.
Blumel JE, Castelo-Branco C, Chedraui PA, et al. Patients’ and clinicians’ attitudes after the Women’s Health Initiative study. Menopause. 2004 28;11(1):57–61.
Lazar F Jr, Costa-Paiva L, Morais SS, Pedro AO, Pinto-Neto AM. The attitude of gynecologists in Sao Paulo, Brazil 3 years after the Women’s Health Initiative study. Maturitas. 2007;56(2):129–41.
Kang BM, Kim MR, Park HM, et al. Attitudes of Korean clinicians to postmenopausal hormone therapy after the Women’s Health Initiative study. Menopause. 2006;13(1):125–9.
King N, Carroll C, Newton P, Dornan T. “You can’t cure it so you have to endure it”: the experience of adaptation to diabetic renal disease. Qual Health Res. 2002;12(3):329–46.
King, N. Template Analysis. In: Symon G, Canell C, eds. Qualitative methods in organizational research: a practical guide. London, England: Sage Publications; 1998:118–34.
Gask L, Ludman E, Schaefer J. Qualitative study of an intervention for depression among patients with diabetes: how can we optimize patient–professional interaction? Chronic Illn. 2006;2(3):231–42.
Diergaarde B, Bowen D, Ludman E, Culver J, Press N, Burke W. Genetic information: special or not? Responses from focus groups with members of a health maintenance organization. Am J Med Gen. 2007;143A:564–9.
Kent G. Understanding the experiences of people with disfigurements: an integration of four models of social and psychological functioning. Psychol Health Med. 2000;5(2):117–29.
Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Using codes and code manuals: a template organizing style of interpretation. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1999.
Connelly MT, Ferrari N, Hagen N, Inui TS. Patient-identified needs for hormone replacement therapy counseling: a qualitative study. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(4):265–268.
Anderson LA, Caplan LS, Buist DS, et al. Perceived barriers and recommendations concerning hormone replacement therapy counseling among primary care providers. Menopause. 1999;6(2):161–6.
Newton KM, LaCroix AZ, Buist DS, Anderson LA, Delaney K. What factors account for hormone replacement therapy prescribing frequency? Maturitas. 2001;39(1):1–10.
Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al. Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement study (HERS) Research Group. JAMA. 1998;280(7):605–13.
Haas JS, Geller B, Miglioretti DL, et al. Changes in newspaper coverage about hormone therapy with the release of new medical evidence. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(4):304–9.
North American Menopause Society. Treatment of menopause-associated vasomotor symptoms: position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause. 2004;11(1):11–33.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kelly Ehrlich, MS, Carol Brandford, and Luesa Jordan for their outstanding assistance with this study, which was supported by NIH grant no. R01 AG022578-02 (principal investigator: Dr. Newton).
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report. Preliminary results were presented at the Society for Behavioral Medicine in 2006.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bush, T.M., Bonomi, A.E., Nekhlyudov, L. et al. How the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Influenced Physicians’ Practice and Attitudes. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 1311–1316 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0296-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0296-z