↓ Skip to main content

Why women choose compounded bioidentical hormone therapy: lessons from a qualitative study of menopausal decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Why women choose compounded bioidentical hormone therapy: lessons from a qualitative study of menopausal decision-making
Published in
BMC Women's Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12905-017-0449-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Jo Thompson, Cheryl Ritenbaugh, Mark Nichter

Abstract

In recent years, compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (CBHT) has emerged as a popular alternative to manufactured, FDA approved hormone therapy (HT)-despite concerns within the medical community and the availability of new FDA approved "bioidentical" products. This study aims to characterize the motivations for using CBHT in a U.S. sample of ordinary midlife women. We analyze data collected from 21 current and former users of CBHT who participated in a larger qualitative study of menopausal decision-making among U.S. women. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using an iterative inductive and deductive process. Although women's individual motivations varied, two overarching themes emerged: "push motivations" that drove women away from conventional HT and from alternative therapies, and "pull motivations" that attracted women to CBHT. Push motivations focused on (1) fear and uncertainty about the safety of conventional HT, (2) an aversion to conjugated estrogens in particular, and (3) and overarching distrust of a medical system perceived as dismissive of their concerns and overly reliant on pharmaceuticals. Participants also voiced dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of herbal and soy supplements. Participants were attracted to CBHT because they perceive it to be (1) effective in managing menopausal symptoms, (2) safer than conventional HT, (3) tailored to their individual bodies and needs, and (4) accompanied by enhanced clinical care and attention. This study finds that women draw upon a range of "push" and "pull" motivations in their decision to use CBHT. Importantly, we find that women are not only seeking alternatives to conventional pharmaceuticals, but alternatives to conventional care where their menopausal experience is solicited, their treatment goals are heard, and they are engaged as agents in managing their own menopause. The significance of this finding goes beyond understanding why women choose CBHT. Women making menopause treatment decisions of all kinds would benefit from greater shared decision-making in the clinical context in which they are explicitly invited to share their experiences, priorities, and preferences. This would also provide an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the pros and cons of conventional HT, CBHT, and other approaches to managing menopause.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,568,310
of 14,188,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#341
of 843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,632
of 276,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,188,815 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them