Practice patterns and attitudes about treating abnormal uterine bleeding: a national survey of obstetricians and gynecologists - 01/10/11
Résumé |
Objective |
We sought to examine the practice patterns and attitudes of obstetricians and gynecologists surrounding treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).
Study Design |
We conducted a cross-sectional study of members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Surveys, which were distributed using a sequential mixed method (both web- and mail-based) approach, included questions about practice characteristics, practice patterns, and knowledge about treatment options for AUB.
Results |
Of 802 questionnaires, 417 were returned (52%). The most commonly selected first-line choice for AUB treatment was combined oral contraceptives (97% anovulatory, 98% ovulatory). The levonorgestrel intrauterine system was the next most frequently selected option (63% anovulatory, 53% ovulatory). Respondents did not score high on questions about the effectiveness of treatments for AUB. Only 25% (n = 86) answered at least 2 of the 3 questions correctly.
Conclusion |
Continued education is necessary to increase the utilization of the most effective treatment options for AUB.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key words : abnormal uterine bleeding, attitudes, evidence, physician survey, treatment preferences
Plan
| This research was supported by Career Development Award K23- HD057957, funded by the National Institutes of Health (Dr Matteson); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Grant no. UA6 MC 19010 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services (Dr Schulkin). |
|
| The authors report no conflict of interest. |
|
| Reprints not available from the authors. |
|
| Cite this article as: Matteson KA, Anderson BL, Pinto SB, et al. Practice patterns and attitudes about treating abnormal uterine bleeding: a national survey of obstetricians and gynecologists. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:321.e1-8. |
Vol 205 - N° 4
P. 321.e1-321.e8 - octobre 2011 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
