Patients' Preferences and General Practitioners' Decisions in the Treatment of Menstrual Disorders

Angela Coulter, Viv Peto, H. Doll
In: Family Practice · 1994 · vol. 11(1) , pp. 67–74 · doi:10.1093/fampra/11.1.67 · PMID:8034155 · W1992193606
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 11 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-21 ⓘ

This study of 483 patients with heavy menstrual bleeding found that higher education and prior consultations predicted strong treatment preferences, which influenced general practitioners' decisions to refer patients for surgical management.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment preferences of patients consulting their general practitioners (GPs) for heavy menstrual bleeding and the influence of these preferences and other factors on GPs' management decisions. One-hundred and twenty-nine GPs recruited 483 eligible patients into the study, of whom 425 (88.0%) returned completed questionnaires. 35.6% of patients indicated that they had a strong treatment preference. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the strongest independent predictors of the likelihood of having a treatment preference were higher education and previous consultations for gynaecological problems. Among those who expressed a preference for either drug therapy or surgery, those with severe symptoms and those who had not received higher education were more likely to prefer surgical treatment. The likelihood of referral was related to a preference for surgery, as expressed by the patient and as perceived by the GP. Patients were much more likely to be referred to a gynaecologist if they had a history of prior surgery (odds ratio 3.21) and if their GP was male (odds ratio 1.76).

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

Cited by (9)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK