Vulvovaginal atrophy in the CRETA study: the healthcare professionals’ perception
Résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: The objective is to assess the perception of gynecologists regarding patients' adherence to vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) treatments, to evaluate the gynecologists' opinions on what their patients think about treatment adherence, and to compare the gynecologists' opinions with the patients' own perceptions within the CRETA study. METHODS: Spanish gynecologists who participated in the CRETA study were asked to fill out an online 41-item questionnaire to evaluate their views on VVA management. RESULTS: From 29 centers across Spain, 44 gynecologists completed the survey. Their mean age was 47.2 years old, two-thirds of them were women, and the average professional experience was over 20 years. According to the gynecologists, the therapy most frequently used by VVA-diagnosed women was vaginal moisturizers (45.5%), followed by local estrogen therapy (36.4%) and ospemifene (18.2%). Nevertheless, ospemifene was viewed as the therapeutic option with the most efficacy, easiest route of administration, shorter time to symptom improvement, lower percentage of dropouts, and higher treatment adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Spanish gynecologists are in general agreement with their patients regarding VVA treatment preferences and the main issues for adherence and effectiveness. However, there is an opportunity for doctor-patient communication improvement. Among the three therapeutic options evaluated, ospemifene is regarded as offering some competitive advantages.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Vulvovaginal atrophy in the CRETA study: the healthcare professionals’ perception
- Date Crossref
- 09/10/2023
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.