Abstract
Background. Climacteric medicine has been in focus during the last 2 decades, and an intensive debate has been ongoing regarding the positive and negative aspects of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT). Recent randomised controlled studies have been unable to confirm data from observational studies of primary or secondary preventive effects of HT on coronary heart disease, and other studies have indicated an increased risk of breast cancer, stroke and venous thromboembolism among HT users. In 2001, we reported on knowledge, attitudes, management strategies and use of HT among Scandinavian gynaecologists. The aim of the present study was to re-assess the same parameters concerning HT among Scandinavian gynaecologists in 2002–2003, and compare the results with the data collected in 1995–1997. Methods. All practicing gynaecologists in Denmark, Sweden and Norway were invited by letter to complete and return a questionnaire regarding their knowledge, attitudes and management strategies concerning HT. Female gynaecologists were questioned if they were currently using HT, and the same question was posed concerning spouses of male gynaecologists. Results. The questionnaire was completed and returned by 60, 76 and 72%, respectively of gynaecologists in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Of the 1,591 physicians who responded, 13% thought that all women should be offered HT provided there were no contraindications, while 86% recommended HT only to selected women after considering the individual advantages and disadvantages of the treatment. Of the gynaecologists, 37% considered HT to be without relevance in the primary prevention of osteoporosis in healthy women. As for duration of the treatment, 40% of the gynaecologists would recommend HT for <5 years for the treatment of climacteric complaints, and only 8% would recommend HT for >10 years. The prevalence of HT use among the menopausal female gynaecologists varied between 71 and 74%. Among the menopausal spouses of male gynaecologists, 68–72% were current users of HT. Conclusion. During the last years of ongoing debate, gynaecologists from Denmark, Sweden and Norway have become more modest in their recommendations of postmenopausal HT. Scandinavian specialists are more cautious in prescribing hormones for women with symptomatic CVD or previously treated for breast cancer, however, their personal use of HT has not changed dramatically and still reflects a positive attitude.