Women's preferences for the levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding
Other
OA: closed
CC0
⤵ 1 in-corpus citation
AI-generated summary
This study investigated women's preferences for the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and endometrial ablation as treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Women's preferences for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) are important in clinical decision-making. Our aim was to investigate whether women with HMB have a preference for treatment characteristics of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or endometrial ablation and to assess the relative importance of these characteristics.
STUDY DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment was performed in general practices and gynaecology outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. Women with HMB were asked to choose between hypothetical profiles containing characteristics of LNG-IUS or endometrial ablation. Characteristics included procedure performed by gynaecologist or general practitioner; reversibility of the procedure; probability of dysmenorrhea; probability of irregular bleeding; additional use of contraception; need to repeat the procedure after five years; and treatment containing hormones. Data were analysed using panel mixed logit models. The main outcome measures were the relative importance of the characteristics and willingness to make trade-offs.
RESULTS: 165 women completed the questionnaire; 36 (22%) patients were recruited from general practices and 129 (78%) patients were recruited from gynaecology outpatient clinics. The characteristic found most important was whether a treatment contains hormones. Women preferred a treatment without hormones, a treatment with the least side effects, and no need for a repeat procedure or additional contraception. Women completing the questionnaire at the gynaecology outpatient clinic differed from women in primary care in their preference for a definitive treatment to be performed by a gynaecologist.
CONCLUSIONS: Whether or not a treatment contains hormones was the most important characteristic influencing patient treatment choice for HMB. Participants preferred characteristics that were mostly related to endometrial ablation, but were willing to trade-off between characteristics.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
MeSH descriptors
Citation neighborhood (sparse)
Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.
Cites (3)
- Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia 2013
- A randomised comparison of medical and hysteroscopic management in women consulting a gynaecologist for treatment of heavy menstrual loss 1997
- Patients' preferences and general practitioners' decisions in the treatment of menstrual disorders 1994
References (34)
- A randomised comparison of medical and hysteroscopic management in women consulting a gynaecologist for treatment of heavy menstrual loss via openalex
- Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia via openalex
- Patients' preferences and general practitioners' decisions in the treatment of menstrual disorders via openalex
- doi:10.1136/qhc.0100055 via openalex
- doi:10.1080/09513590903159656 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12213 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0301-2115(02)00408-6 via openalex
- doi:10.1001/jama.288.21.2701 via openalex
- doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002126.pub3 via openalex
- doi:10.1097/gco.0b013e3283630e9c via openalex
- W245387374 via openalex
- W1505658563 via openalex
- W1602006543 via openalex
- W1932709689 via openalex
- doi:10.1136/qhc.0100055.. via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2011.10.001 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00253.x via openalex
- doi:10.2165/11539650-000000000-00000 via openalex
- doi:10.1159/000082577 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2007.03.012 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013 via openalex
- W2364654746 via openalex
- W6640284878 via openalex
- W6654016902 via openalex
- W6678970468 via openalex
- doi:10.1001/jama.291.12.1456 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01427.x via openalex
- doi:10.1783/147118902101196225 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humupd/8.1.68 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00069-1 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.12.025 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2007.03.024 via openalex
- doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e3182020401 via openalex
- doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e318236f7ed via openalex
Source provenance
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-05-11T06:42:59.773506+00:00
- pubmed
- last seen: 2026-10-08T21:22:24.294217+00:00
License: CC0
· commercial use OK