Back

Experiences towards hormonal treatments: a qualitative study among endometriosis patients and healthcare professionals

Le Quere, D.; Verroul, M.; Bouvard, M.; Brault Galland, E.; Dubernard, G.; Philip, C.-A.; Haesebaert, J.; Brulport, A.

2026-04-01 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.03.31.26349847 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: To investigate, in the context of endometriosis management, the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals regarding hormonal treatment options. Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured focus group methodology. Setting: University hospitals and academic research center. Subject(s): Patients with endometriosis (n=20) and healthcare professionals (n=13) involved in their care. Intervention(s): Not applicable Main Outcome Measure(s): Focus group topics investigated representations on the concept of treatment effectiveness, emotion associated to this medical management and the perceived impact of these therapies on patient-professional and patient-environment relationship. Result(s): We highlighted a discrepancy between patients and doctors regarding the concept of efficacy of hormonal therapies. Long-term amenorrhea is the main priority for healthcare professionals, whereas pain reduction remains the immediate wait for patients. Interviewed patients reported a lack of listening and empathy, a shared-information deficit as regards treatment options and side-effects and a need to involved partner and family in care. These factors contribute to communication issues between patients and doctors and appear to contribute to significant mental burden on both sides. Among healthcare professionals, mental burden appears to arise primarily from the resource-intensive demands of endometriosis management, whereas among patients it is driven more by the need to take an active role in their own care to compensate for insufficient information provided by physicians. Conclusion: In this study, we highlighted the ambiguities surrounding the concept of therapeutic efficacy of hormonal therapies and collected several factors to try to improve shared-decision-making process in the management of endometriosis. This is designed to help us create a shared decision-making tool in the near future.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 2%
34.4%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.1%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 21%
5.1%
4
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
5
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
7
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
8
Cell Communication and Signaling
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
9
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
10
Human Reproduction
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
11
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
12
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
13
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.9%
14
Pain
70 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
15
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
16
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
17
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
19
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
20
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
21
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
22
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
24
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
26
Applied Sciences
24 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
27
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
29
Bioscience Reports
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
30
Obesity
19 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%