IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i2p186-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Survey of Gynecologists' Attitudes Regarding Decision Making in the Management of Non-cancerous Conditions That Frequently Result in Hysterectomy

Author

Listed:
  • James G. Dolan
  • Fred M. Howard

Abstract

Objective. To explore attitudes of practicing gynecologists regarding making treatment decisions for patients with benign uterine conditions frequently treated with hysterec tomy. Design. Mailed survey. Participants. 66 gynecologists practicing in the Greater Rochester, New York, area. Interventions. After reading brief vignettes, respondents indicated how they would treat patients with chronic pelvic pain, uterine leiomyomas, and abnormal uterine bleeding, and rated the importance of 24 considerations in mak ing their treatment decisions on a 1-to-5 scale ranging from not important to extremely important. Results. Fourteen considerations (58%) had group mean importance ratings higher than 3. Exploratory factor analysis identified four factors that accounted for 96% of the variance. Respondent gender, practice type, graduation from a U.S. vs a non- U.S. medical school, and opinion regarding roles of doctor and patient in making treat ment decisions were associated with significant differences in factor scores. Conclu sions. Gynecologists' attitudes toward hysterectomy decisions are complex, multifactorial, and variable. Depending on the extent to which these attitudes affect treatment decisions, differences among gynecologists in their clinical decision making processes could account for a substantial amount of the regional variability in hyster ectomy use. Key words: decision making; hysterectomy, physician-patient relation ship. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:186-192)

Suggested Citation

  • James G. Dolan & Fred M. Howard, 1999. "A Survey of Gynecologists' Attitudes Regarding Decision Making in the Management of Non-cancerous Conditions That Frequently Result in Hysterectomy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 186-192, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:186-192
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900209
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:186-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.