Neurologic Disease in Women - part 2 pdf

NEUROLOGIC DISEASE IN WOMEN 32 acts using the criterion of caring or responsibility versus an orientation of rights or privilege. One important caveat in considering adult development and research on women’s roles and their health is that most work has involved white women who have above-average economic resources. Studies often do not reflect the reality of poor women’s lives, and women of color are disproportionately poor. WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES OF HEALTH CARE Women have well established themselves as expert consumers of health care services in the United States and as a primary resource for their family’s health care decisions (1,42). Recent innovations in the field of information technology are greatly increasing the access to knowledge of health maintenance and health care, including the expanding interactive capacities of the Internet, electronic mail (e-mail), handheld computers, and cellular tele- phones. The Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health (43) defines these tools of communication technology or interactive health communications (IHC) as “the interaction of individuals—consumer, patient, caregiver, or professionals—with or through an electronic device or communication technology to access or trans- mit health information or to receive guidance and support on a health related issue” (43, p. 1264). The con- vergence of rapidly developing scientific advances and IHC is changing the nature of contemporary health care experiences and health care communications. The accessibility of up-to-date medical information through the Internet adds another dimension to the consumer power held by women, one which potentially fosters more active participation in health, health care decisions, and confi- dence in obtaining appropriate health care for themselves and their families (44). Equally important to an understanding of women’s experiences of health care are the effects that sociocultural influences have. Acknowledging and sensitively addressing the cultural characteristics and needs of diverse groups during the provision of health care will reduce existing socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial disparities, stereotyping, and gender bias. Women as Health Care Consumers Women represent the largest proportion of health services consumers at all ages in the United States (even after adjusting for childbearing) (45). American women make three-fourths of the health care decisions in their house- holds and spend nearly two of every three health care dol- lars. More than 61% of physician visits are made by women, 59% of prescription drugs are purchased by women, and 75% of nursing home residents over 75 years of age are women (46). Increasingly savvy regarding their health and well-being, women want to be taken seriously during visits with their health care clinicians and yet, frequently find themselves frustrated and dissatisfied when they feel they are not being listened to (47–49). Women regularly express a longing to be more com- fortable asking questions and getting clearer answers from their physicians, despite the pressures of today’s managed care environment, in which time efficiency is at a premium during the medical encounter (47). The advent of IHC holds great promise for enhancing women’s focused interactions with their clinicians, and results in better informed decision-making and greater patient satisfaction. The Influence of Telecommunications on Health Care In 2002, the adoption of Internet use in the United States was at a rate of 2 million new Internet users per month. Over half the nation is now online, and overall Internet use is steadily increasing, regardless of income, education, age, race, ethnicity, or gender. Low family incomes, low levels of overall education, and English as a second language are still the strongest predictors of those within the “unconnected” population (50). Yet, the exponential growth rate in the Internet’s user base, with the greatest increase occurring among younger, school-aged user groups, is rapidly narrowing the “digital divide” (44,51). Women and men demonstrate equal rates of computer utilization. Not surprising, women go online to find information on health services or practices more frequently than men (39.8% of female computer users con- trasted with 29.6% of male computer users). Regular e- mail use was reported by 85.1% of female users versus 82.8% of male users. Routine computer use and Inter- net access at work, school, or libraries is substantially narrowing the “unconnected population” in computer appli- cations nationwide, which subsequently influences increased household usage (50). As the Internet becomes a more conventional information tool, expectations have increased about the reli- ability of health or medical information found online. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project (52), 67% of Americans believe that health care information found online is reliable, which explains why such information plays an increasing role in people’s interactions with their health care providers and in their more active participation in decision-making. Most Internet “health seekers” are women, who say that they are still careful to consult with a medical professional before acting on online medical advice. Fifty- eight percent of Internet health seekers predict that they will first go online when next they need reliable health WOMEN’S LIVES AND THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH HEALTH CARE 33 care information versus 35% who say that their first move will be to contact a health care professional (52). In an exploratory study to determine the motiva- tions of women who use the Internet to obtain health information, health consciousness as well as health needs and cost-effectiveness were each significant (44). In par- ticular, the efficiency of Internet searching was premium for women whose full daily schedules included managing child care, elder care, and/or personal health issues. Advances in telecommunications and interactive media offer both advantages and potential risks in health communication. The Science Panel on Interactive Com- munication and Health (43) found that the benefits of IHC include enhanced opportunities for the provision of information “tailored” to the specific needs or characteristics of those searching the Web; increased access to information and support at the user’s convenience; greater opportunities for interaction with clinical experts as well as obtaining support from others with similar conditions through e-mail or chat rooms; and enhanced abilities for the widespread dissemination and currency of content. Potential problems with direct Internet access also exist, including the lack of regulation on the quality of the health information presented, which potentially com- promises the accuracy and appropriateness of the mate- rial online. This can result in patients obtaining inappropriate treatment or delay in seeking necessary medical care. Further, greater reliance on IHC can erode people’s trust in their health care professionals and prescribed therapies if there are substantial differences of opinion. Pri- vacy and confidentiality may be violated (43). E-mail is also becoming a useful adjunct to patient–clinician communications, replacing the telephone in efficiency and provider accessibility. Typically, important aspects of health care take place via telephone—patients call to ask advice, get prescription refills, and give feedback on previously prescribed therapies, whereas providers call to discuss lab results or follow a patient’s progress. Problems encountered with this technology include missed telephone calls in either direction, lines that are often busy, or interruptions to the recipient’s activity. Misunderstanding or misinterpretation is com- mon over the phone and can lead to poor compliance with medical advice. The documentation of these calls is often incomplete, which makes the subsequent decision- making process challenging and increases the clinician’s legal liability (53). For nonemergent medical issues, e-mail has the potential to improve patient–clinician communications. For the patient, e-mail can reduce the inconvenience of waiting for call-backs; questions can be formulated more purposefully; the clinician’s instructions can be read, saved, and later reread; sensitive questions may be easier to ask electronically; and the ability to ask quick questions between visits gives a sense of greater access to medical care. For the professional, unsuccessful calls are min- imized, messages can be read and responded to at more convenient times, medical advice can be carefully worded before it is provided, communications can be saved in print form for the patient’s record, and easy references to other sources of information can be provided either in hand-outs or web-links (53,54). As with any new technology, potential problems exist with “digital doctoring” through electronic communications, including concerns over privacy issues; uncertainty as to the reception of the message; nonuni- versal access, especially for those more vulnerable and already underserved populations (55,56); the potential for managing staggering e-mail volume; or an inability to respond in an efficient manner, which could create increasing patient dissatisfaction or enhance the imper- sonal nature of medical encounters (56,53). Specific rec- ommendations for clinical e-mail and medicolegal and administrative e-mail guidelines have been developed to enhance the use of this technology in positive and pro- ductive ways (54). These technologies can have a democratizing effect on access to and control of information between health care professionals and laypersons. These types of interactions have the potential for increased availability, a better understanding of various aspects of the diagnosis or management of a health condition, and better prepara- tion for health care visits (44). Despite all its potential, it is equally important to recognize that these newest information technologies continue to emphasize the gaps between the privileged and the less fortunate of our society (55). Whether the issues are access to obtaining health care, health insurance, or health information, the largest barrier for a substantial portion of women remains the acquisition of adequate education and income to afford these essentials. A major challenge of the future will include finding solutions to bridge the “digital divide” to improve health care services for all. Traditional Communication within Health Care A fundamental component of effective health care is the dialog that occurs between patients and their clinicians. The communication that is exchanged between women and their physicians is central to the quality of the therapeutic alliance that they establish. It is through talk that unique interpersonal relationships are shaped, essential medical information is exchanged, health problems or risks are identified, health education and counseling is dis- cussed, and decisions about treatment options or pre- vention measures are negotiated and carried out. Widely studied, the significant benefits of proficient communication between patients and clinicians include reduced patient anxiety, enhanced patient understanding NEUROLOGIC DISEASE IN WOMEN 34 and recall, increased perceptions of personal control over one’s health, satisfaction with medical care, adherence to medical therapeutics, and subsequent improved health status (57–65). Yet, women’s experiences of the health care system often reflect a less than courteous climate. Women patients may encounter a physician’s inappropriate use of familiar forms of address (i.e., using the patient’s first name), disparagement of their abilities to use medical information rationally, a condescending manner, or with- holding technical information, such as the benefits and risks of informed consent. These kinds of exchanges have been described and interpreted as ways in which the physician controls the medical visit and the patient’s behavior (66–68). The consequences of communication problems, based on a review of studies on physician and patient rela- tions by Stewart (69), include inaccurate medical diag- noses, lack of patient participation in medical care dis- cussions, or inadequate provision of information to the patient. Ineffective communication most commonly results in patient dissatisfaction with a physician’s care and con- sequently, the patient’s termination of their professional relationship (57). From the Commonwealth Fund women’s health survey data, women were approximately twice as likely as men to have changed physicians due to dissatisfaction. Women were also more likely to report communication problems with their physicians, and this issue was cited as the most important contributing fac- tor for switching health care providers for both men and women (70). Ineffective communication is also a major source of stress and anxiety for the patient during the medical encounter (71). Social Context The social context of the medical encounter also influences patient–provider interaction. The dialog between women and their physicians occurs in a variety of clinical settings, between individuals of unequal power, involving issues of vital importance that are both cultur- ally and emotionally laden and thus, necessitate joint cooperation. The ideal patient–provider relationship in which mutual trust exists, communication is reciprocal, and therapeutic goals and decisions are agreed upon, is not easily achieved (64). Communication Styles Communication style differences between genders account for the distinct ways in which men and women use questions, volume and pitch, indirectness, interruptions, silence, or polite refusals. From birth, women and men are treated differently, related to differently, and they talk differently as a result. Girls and boys grow up in different worlds, even when they grow up in the same house- holds. These differences continue into adulthood and reinforce communication patterns established in child- hood (72, p. 133). Recognizing these gender differences, which include differing expectations about the role of talk in relationships, is essential to the provision of quality health care to women. In studies of patient–provider communication, women are more likely to recognize and report symptoms as well as be more articulate and knowledgeable when talking with their physicians during annual medical visits (73). Perhaps because they are more familiar and com- fortable with health system utilization, women talk more and offer more complaints during medical visits (74,61,62); ask more questions (756–77); receive more information and a greater number of explanations from both male and female physicians (78–80), and generally have longer medical visits than men (61,77,62) (as reviewed in 70,81). Among patients with chronic disease, women are more likely to prefer an active role in decision- making that males (82). Hooper and colleagues (78) determined that female patients got more information and empathy from their doctors as well as fewer physician-initiated disruptions during their visits. Findings by Stewart (83) revealed that physicians demonstrated more tension release (e.g., laugh- ter) with female patients and were more likely to solicit their feelings and opinions (81). Power Studies of interactions between physicians and patients, however, have also described the constrained structure of typical medical encounters and the use of power or domination to limit and control medical dialog. The use of interruption and the amount of talk or words, question-asking, information-giving, and adversativeness are examples of methods that physicians employ to control the course of the medical interview (84–88). One study (89) revealed that physicians interrupt patients an average of 18 seconds into the patient’s opening remarks. The patient was only able to complete her primary complaint or concern 23% of the time. But, as Allen and colleagues (90) suggest, perhaps it is not the interruption, but the missed opportunity to disclose information about themselves and their situation that leaves patients feeling that they have not been taken seriously. Meaning Patients must be able to tell their stories, but may be con- fronted with their clinicians’ incompatible frame of ref- erence as to what information should be shared during medical visits (91). Physicians may not be aware of or WOMEN’S LIVES AND THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH HEALTH CARE 35 understand women’s “explanatory models” of their health concerns or their attitudes, values, and beliefs as related to illness and health care (92,93). These models are the patient’s underlying assumptions about their medical condition and its related therapies, which often explain the types of questions that the patient asks about their condition’s etiology, symptoms, the degree of sever- ity, the type of sick role (chronic or acute) they assume, and various treatment options (94). These beliefs are directly influenced by one’s cultural groups and social class (93,95). In analyzing medical discourse, Mischler (96) iden- tifies two opposing voices: the voice of medicine (reflect- ing a scientific, detached attitude) and the voice of the “lifeworld” (patient’s meaning of illness and how this dis- rupts the achievement of personal goals). He sees the medical encounter as a situation of conflict between two distinct efforts to construct meaning (97, p. 81). As Kleinman (92) suggests, the effectiveness of professional communication and health care outcomes is a function of the agreement between the patient’s and clinician’s explanatory models. Understanding the patient’s perspective of her condition is a prerequisite for successful clinician–patient dia- logue. It is also important to recognize how frequently this perspective differs (93). Studies that have explored issues of potential patient–provider conflict include the degree to which physicians meet patient expectations (98), how often physicians are aware of patients’ concerns (99,100), the rate of agreement between patients and physicians about those problems that require follow-up visits (101), and levels of agreement between patients and their physicians regarding the patient’s health status (102). Implications of Cultural Diversity Racial, ethnic and social disparities exist in U.S. health care and have become the focus of a recent Institute of Medicine report uncovering “unequal treatment” (103). Even after controlling for age, insurance status, income, comorbid conditions, and symptom expression, racial and ethnic groups are more likely to experience a sub- standard quality of health care. Explanations for this dis- parity in health care, embedded in historic and contemporary socioeconomic inequalities, are complex. Accountabilities exist on many levels: health systems, administrative and bureaucratic policies, utilization man- agers, and clinicians and patients (103). As the growth of ethnic populations currently referred to as minorities continues, they will comprise 40% of the U.S. population by 2035, and 47% by 2050 (104). The health care needs of an increasingly diverse U.S. population are now established as a goal of public health, thus cultural, linguistic, and literacy differences must addressed (105,106). Clinicians are challenged to examine the part they play in creating these disparities: their expressions of bias (or discrimination), greater clinical uncertainty when inter- acting with minority patients, and the beliefs (or stereotypes) held by professionals about the behavior or health of minorities. In response, patients may contribute to these dynamics through mistrust, treatment refusal, or poor compliance with prescribed therapies. Additional barri- ers to health care access for minorities can include language, geography, and cultural familiarity. Health systems may also contribute to these inequities because of heavy time pressures, cognitive complexities within the clinical encounter, and the push for cost containment (103). As one example, a study by Rivadeneyra and colleagues (107) revealed that Spanish-speaking patients experience a double disadvantage when receiving medical care from English-speaking physicians. Primary care patients who spoke through an interpreter made markedly fewer comments than did patients speaking directly with clinicians. Due to time consumed by the interpretation process, these patients had fewer opportunities to explain their symptoms or raise concerns. Further, when they did offer comments, they were more likely to be ignored than the English-speaking patients. These findings illustrate that non-English speaking patients have communication bar- riers beyond just difficulties with translation. Rivadeneyra and associates suggest that both physician and patient may change their behavior in subtle ways that may compromise the development of mutual trust, increase the likelihood of physician misunderstanding of the complexity associated with the patient’s symptoms, and decrease the possibility of patient compliance with medical advice (107). Other studies have also found that clinicians deliver less information, less supportive remarks, and less proficient clinical performance to black and Hispanic patients and patients from lower economic status than they do to more advantaged patients, even in the same setting (78,80,108). The ability to establish effective interpersonal and working relationships that transcend cultural differences defines “cultural competence.” Within health care, cultural competence describes the process by which a clinician continuously attempts to be effective within the cultural context of a patient, who may be an individual, family, or community (109,106). Strategies to bridge the sociocultural inequities in health care include providing interpreters as well as linguistic competency to health education materials, the incorporation of clinical staff who share similar cultural backgrounds in addition to the inclusion of family or community health workers, and clinic accommodations that adjust hours of operation and physical environment, and increasing the ability of professionals to interact effec- tively within the culture of the patient population through regular continuing education (110,106). NEUROLOGIC DISEASE IN WOMEN 36 Gender Bias Research has also investigated gender bias in the deliv- ery of health care—that is, if and how female patients are treated and perceived in a way different from male patients by physicians. Twenty years ago, McCranie, Horowitz, and Martin (111) reported no evidence that physicians attribute psychogenic illness more frequently to women than men or recommend psychological treat- ments more to women. Verbrugge and Steiner (112) also failed to identify any significant gender differences in tests and procedures in their analyses of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. More recent research in coronary artery disease, kid- ney dialysis and transplantation, and the diagnosis of lung cancer (113–115) provides convincing evidence that differences in the quality of the technical care received by women cannot be explained by other factors, such as poorer health status (116). Bernstein and Kane (117) investigated the relative impact of patient gender and expressivity on attitudes of primary care physicians toward patients. Their research determined that physicians believed that women were more likely to make excessive demands as compared to men, women’s health complaints were assessed as more likely to be influenced by emotional factors, and women were identified more frequently with psychosomatic complaints than men. Their results supported their hypothe- ses that physicians have preconceptions about female patients. They also argue, however, that differences in physicians’ responses are not simply due to bias against women, but may be a complex response to the open and expressive behavioral style more frequently identified in women. They suggest that their findings underline the necessity for physicians to rise above stereotypes and treat each patient as an individual, instead of a member of a group (118, p. 607). Collaboration Increasing evidence exists for the value of a collabora- tive model of communication that promotes mutual interaction between patients and providers. Roter and Hall (87) offer a framework for understanding patient– provider communication as a partnership, each having certain responsibilities to contribute to the quality of their exchange. This model suggests associations between the patient’s question-asking (and the information that is subsequently offered by the provider) with the patient’s overall comprehension, agreement with treatment, and con- tinuance with prescribed therapies. The value of patient involvement during the medical encounter is revealed through enhanced patient satisfaction and loyalty to the clinician (70); among patients with chronic diseases, active patient participation is associated with better health outcomes (116). Patients are also most satisfied by interactions with physicians who encourage them to talk about psychosocial issues in an atmosphere that is characterized by the absence of domination by the physician (118). In summary, women’s experiences of health care services and physician interactions are different from those of their male patient counterparts. The role of communication is paramount to ensuring maximal health outcomes. As information technology becomes more acces- sible and more widely utilized, the nature of this communication will change. Yet, interpersonal interactions are essential to health care provision. A mutual appreciation and respect for the expertise that each individual (patient or clinician) brings to the medical encounter will facilitate more substantive dialog. Assim- ilating the principles of cultural competence enhances the interactions and significantly influences the outcomes of care. Just as physicians are technical experts in medical science and therapeutic options, so women are experts in how they feel, both physically and emotionally. Women can usually talk about how their health or illness affects the complexity of their lives, their careers, and families or relationships. Women must be listened to without interruption and believed by their care providers. Physicians must attempt to integrate the complex, contextual aspects of women’s health or illness and not focus solely on the pathology of their medical condition and its treatment. References 1. Weisman CS. Women’s health care: activist traditions and institutional change . Baltimore, Md: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998;10–36. 2. Wizemann TM, Pardue M-L (eds). Exploring the Bio- logical contributions to human health: does sex matter? Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001. 3. Connell R. Gender and power. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1987. 4. Pinn VW. Sex and gender factors in medical studies: implications for health and clinical practice. JAMA 2003;289(4):397–399. 5. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 2001. Highlights of women’s earnings in 2000 (Report 952). http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2000.pdf. Accessed 1/12/03. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women, work and health. DHHS Pub No. (PHS) 98- 1791. Washington, DC: USDHHS, 1997. 7. Messing K. Multiple roles and complex exposures: hard- to-pin down risks for working women. In: Goldman MB, Hatch MC, (eds.) Women & Health. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press, 2000;455–462. 8. Collins KS, Schoen C, Joseph S, et al. Health concerns across the lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health . New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund, 1999. 9. U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cur- rent Population Survey, Annual Demographic Survey, March 2000 (Table 1). http://ferret.bls.census.gov/ macro/032001/pov/toc.htm. Accessed 1/12/03. WOMEN’S LIVES AND THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH HEALTH CARE 37 10. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Poverty in the United States 1998: current population reports . Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 11. Wilson J. Women and poverty: a demographic overview. Women’s Health 1987;12(3/4):21–40. 12. Richardson H. The health plight of rural women. Women’s Health 1987;12(3/4):41–54. 13. Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP). Who was poor in 2001? http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/faqx/faq3.htm. Accessed 1/13/03. 14. American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. White paper: No health insurance? It’s enough to make you sick. Philadelphia, Pa: Ameri- can College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, 2000. 15. Campbell J, Landenberger K. Violence against women. In: Fogel C, Woods N, (eds.) Women’s health care: A comprehensive handbook . Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 1995. 16. Plichta SB, Falik M. Prevalence of violence and its implications for women’s health. Women’s Health Issues 2001;11(3):244–258. 17. Faludi S. Backlash. New York, NY: Crown Books, 1991. 18. McLaughlin S, Melber B. The changing lifecourse of American women: Life-style and attitude changes, draft. Seattle, Wash: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 1986. 19. U.S. Department of Commerce News. US Census Bureau releases profile of nation’s women, 2001 . Washington, DC: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/ cb01-49.html. 20. Bernstein AB. Motherhood, health status, and health care. Women’s Health Issues 2001;11(3):173–184. 21. U.S. Department of Commerce News. U.S. Census Bureau releases record share of new mothers in labor force, Census Bureau Reports . Washington, DC: 2000. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2000/cb00- 175.html. Accessed 1/12/03. 22. Collins K, Rowland D, Salganicoff A, Chait E. Assessing and improving women’s health. In: Costello C, Stone A, (eds.) The American woman: 1994–: Where We Stand. New York, NY: Norton, 1994;154–196. 23. U.S. Census Bureau Public Affairs Information Office. U.S. Census Bureau facts for features: women’s history month: March 1-31. Washington, DC: 2001. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/ cb01ff03.html. Accessed 1/12/03. 24. McGovern P, Gjerdingen D, Froberg D. The parental leave debate: implications for policy relevant research. Women’s Health 1992;18:97–118. 25. Donelan K, Falik M, DesRoches CM. Caregiving: chal- lenges and implications for women’s health. Women’s Health Issues 2001;11(5):185. 26. Russo N. Overview: forging research priorities for women’s mental health. Am Psych 1990;45(3): 368–373. 27. Verbrugge L. Role burdens and physical health of women and men. Women’s Health 1986;11(1):47–77. 28. U.S. Census Bureau Public Affairs Information Office. U.S. Census Bureau facts for features: mother’s day 1999: May 9. Washington, DC: 1999. http://www. census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99ff07.html. Accessed 1/12/03. 29. Haynes S, Feinleib M. Women, work, and coronary heart disease: prospective findings from the Framingham Heart Study. Am J Public Health 1980;70(2):133–141. 30. Nathanson C. Social roles and health status among women: the significance of employment. Soc Sci Med 1980;14a:463–471. 31. Frankenhauser M. The psychophysiology of sex differences as related to occupation. In: Frankenhauser M, Lundberg U, Chesney M, (eds.) Women, work and health: stress and opportunities. New York, NY: Plenum, 1991;35–64. 32. Hochschild A, Machung A. The second shift. New York, NY: Avon Books, 1990. 33. Woods N. Employment, family roles, and mental ill health in young adult married women. Nursing Research 1985;34(1):4–9. 34. Van Fossen B. Sex differences in the mental health effects of spouse support and equity. J Health Soc Behav 1981;22:130–143. 35. McBride A. Multiple roles. Am Psych 1990;45:381–384. 36. Miller J. The development of a woman’s sense of self. In: Jordan J, Kaplan A, Miler J, Stiver I, Surrey J, (eds.) Women’s growth in connection: writings from the Stone Center. New York, NY: Guilford, 1991;11–26. 37. Surrey J. The “self-in-relation”: A theory of women’s development. In: Jordan, op cit. 1991;51–66. 38. Jordan J. Empathy and self boundaries. In Jordan, op cit. 1991;67–80. 39. Raymond J. A Passion for friends: toward a philosophy of female affection . Boston, Mass: Beacon, 1986. 40. Belenky M, et al. Women’s ways of knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1986. 41. Gilligan C. In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1982. 42. Nussbaum R. Studies of women’s health care: selected results. Permanente Journal 2000;4(3):62–67. 43. Robinson TN, Patrick K, Eng TR, Gustafson D, for the Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: a challenge to medicine in the information age. JAMA 1998;280(14):1264–1269. 44. Pandey SK, Hart JJ, Tiwary S. Women’s health and the Internet: understanding emerging trends and implications. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:179–191. 45. Weisman CS. Women’s use of health care. In: Falik MM, Collins KS, (eds.) Women’s Health: the Commonwealth Fund survey. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996;19–48. 46. Society for Women’s Health Research. Women’s Health- links. http://www.womens-health-org/healthfactsheet2. html. Accessed 5/18/01. 47. Healy BP. Editorial: listening to America’s women. J Wom Health 1995;4(6):589–590. 48. Rothert M, Padonu G, Holmes-Rovner M, et al. Menopausal women as decision makers in health care. Exp Gerontol 1994;29:(3/4):463–468. 49. Rothert M, Rovner D, Holmes M, et al. Women’s use of information regarding hormone replacement therapy. Res Nurs Health 1990;13(6):355–366. 50. U.S. Department of Commerce. A nation online: how Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Wash- ington, DC: 2/2002. http://www.nti.doc.gov/ntia- home/dn/html. Accessed 12/15/02. 51. Hoffman D, Novak T. Bridging the racial divide on the Internet. Science 1998;390–391. 52. Pew Internet & American Life Project http://pewinter net.org/reports/reports.asp. Accessed 12/2/02. NEUROLOGIC DISEASE IN WOMEN 38 53. Leber S, Mack K. The Internet and clinical practice of child neurology. Curr Op Neurol 2000;13:147–153. 54. Kane B, Sands DZ and the American Medical Informat- ics Association Task Force on Guidelines for the Use of Clinic-Patient Electronic Mail. Guidelines for the clinical use of electronic mail with patients. J American Inform Assoc 1998;5:104–111. 55. Eng TR, Maxfield A, Patrick K, Deering MJ, Ratzan SC, Gustafson DH. Access to health information and support: a public highway or a private road? JAMA 1998;280:1371–1375. 56. Mandl DK, Kohane IS, Brandt AM. Electronic patient- physician communication: problems and promises. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:495–500. 57. Hall J, Roter D, Katz NR. Correlates of provider behavior: a meta-analysis. Med Care 1988;26(7):657–675. 58. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE Jr. Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions: the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care 1989;27(suppl 3):S110–S127. 59. Brody DS, Miller SM, Lerman CE, Smith DG, Caputo GC. Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 1989;4(Nov/Dec):506–511. 60. Anderson LA, Sharpe PA. Improving patient and provider communication: a synthesis and review of communication interventions. Patient Education Counseling 1991;17:99–134. 61. Meeuwesen L, Schaap C, Van der Staak C. Verbal analysis of doctor-patient communication. Soc Sci Med 1991;32(10):1143–1150. 62. Bensing J, van der Brink-Muinen A, de Bakker D. Gen- der differences in practice style: a Dutch study of general practitioners. Medical Care 1993;31(3):219–229. 63. Hodne CJ, Reiter RC. Decision-making in women’s health care. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1994;37(1):162–178. 64. Ong LML, DeHaes JCJM, Hoos AM, Lammes FB. Doc- tor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Socl Sci Med 1995;40(7):903–918. 65. Lin CT, Albertson GA, Schilling LM, et al. Is patients’ perception of time spent with the physician a determi- nant of ambulatory patient satisfaction? Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1437–1442. 66. Fisher S. In the patient’s best interest: women and the politics of medical decisions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rut- gers University Press, 1986. 67. Ruzek S. The women’s health movement. New York, NY: Praeger, 1979. 68. Weisman C, Teitelbaum M. Women and health care communication. Patient Ed Counse 1989;13:183–189. 69. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Canadian Med Assoc J 1995;152(9):1423–1433. 70. Kaplan SH, Sullivan LM, Spetter D, Dukes KA, Khan A, Greenfield S. Gender and patterns of physician- patient communication. In: Falik MM, Collins KS, (eds.) Women’s health: The commonwealth fund survey. Bal- timore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996; 76–95. 71. Roter DL. Patient question asking in physician-patient interaction. Health Psych 1984;3(5):395–409. 72. Tannen D. Gender and discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994. 73. Weisman C, Teitelbaum M. Women and health care communication. Patient Ed Counse 1989;13:183–189. 74. Verbrugge L. Sex differences in complaints and diag- noses. J Behav Med 1980;3:327–355. 75. Wallen J, Waitzkin H, Stoeckle J. Physician stereotypes about female health and illness: a study of patient’s sex and the informative process during medical interviews. Wom Health 1979;4:135. 76. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S. Gender differences in physician-patient communication for patients seeing the same and opposite gender physicians [Abstract]. Soc Gen Intern Med 1991. 77. Roter DL, Lipkin M, Korsgaard A. Sex differences in patients’ and physicians’ communication during primary care visits. Med Care 1991;29(11):1083–1093. 78. Hooper EM, Comstock LM, Goodwin JM, Goodwin JS. Patient characteristics that influence physician behavior. Med Care 1982;20(6):630–638. 79. Pendleton DA, Bochner S. The communication of medical information in general practice consultations as a function of patients’ social class. Soc Sci Med 1980;14A(6):669–673. 80. Waitzkin H. Information giving in medical care. J Health Soc Behav 1985;26(2):81–101. 81. Hall JA, Irish JT, Roter DL, Ehrlich CM, Miller LH. Gender in medical encounters: an analysis of physician and patient communication in a primary care setting. Health Psych 1994;13(5):384–392. 82. Arora NK, McHorney CA. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Med Care 2000;38(3):335–341. 83. Stewart M. Patient characteristics which are related to the doctor-patient interaction. Fam Prac 1983;1:30–36. 84. Svarstad BL. The doctor-patient encounter: an observa- tional study of communication and outcome. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1974. 85. West C, Zimmerman DH. Small insults: a study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unac- quainted persons. In: Thorne B, Kramarer C, Henley N (eds.) Language, gender and society. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 1983;103–117. 86. West C, Zimmerman DH. Doing gender. Gender in Soci- ety 1987;1:125–151. 87. Roter DL, Hall JA. Health education theory: an appli- cation to the process of patient-provider communication. Health Ed 1991;6:1301–1306. 88. Tannen D. You just don’t understand: women and men in conversation. New York, NY: William Morris, 1990. 89. Beckman HB, Frankel RM. The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Ann Intern Med 1984;101(5):692–696. 90. Allen D, Gilchrist V, Levinson W, Roter D. Caring for women: is it different? Schroeder H, ed. Patient Care Nov 1993;183–196. 91. Mathews JJ. The communication process in clinical settings. Soc Sci Med 1983;17(18):1371–1378. 92. Kleinman AM. Patients and healers in the context of culture. Los Angeles, Calif: University of California Press, 1987. 93. Helman CG. Communication in primary care: the role of patient and practitioner explanatory models. Soc Sci Med 1985;20(9):923–931. 94. Joos SK, Hickam DH. How health professionals influence health behavior: Patient-provider interaction and health care outcomes. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, (eds.) Health behavior and health education. San Fran- cisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass, 1990;216–241. 95. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, illness, and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Intern Med 1978;88(2):251–258. WOMEN’S LIVES AND THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH HEALTH CARE 39 96. Mischler EG. The discourse of medicine: dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood, NY: Ablex, 1984. 97. Weston WW, Brown JB. The importance of patients’ beliefs. In: Stewart M, Roter D, (eds.) Communicating with medical patients . Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Pub- lications, 1989;77–85. 98. Bell RA, Kravitz RL, Thorn D, Krupat E, Azari R. Unmet expectations for care and the patient-physician relationship. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17:817–824. 99. Krupat E, Rosenkranz SL, Yeager CM, Barnard K, Put- nam SM, Inui TS. The practice orientations of physicians and patients: the effect of doctor-patient congruence on satisfaction. Patient Ed Counsel 2000;39:49–59. 100. Levinson W, Gorawar-Bhat, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and sur- gical settings. JAMA 2000;284:1021–1027. 101. Starfield B, Steinwachs D, Morris I, Bause G, Siebert S, Westin C. Patient-doctor agreement about problems needing follow-up visit. JAMA 1979;242(4):344–346. 102. Rakowski W, Hickey T, Dengiz A. Congruence of health and treatment perceptions among older patients and providers of primary care. Int J Aging Hum Devel 1987;25:67–81. 103. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, (eds.) Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002. 104. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current population reports, series P25-1130: population projections for the U.S. by sex, race and Hispanic origin, 1995-2050 . Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996. 105. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Under- standing and eliminating minority health disparities (RFA: HS-00-003). Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1999. 106. Cooper LA, Roter DL. Patient-provider communication: the effect of race and ethnicity on process and outcomes of health care. In: Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, (eds.) Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002;330–354. 107. Rivadeneyra R, Elderkin-Thompson V, Cohen Silver R, Waitzkin H. Patient centeredness in medical encounters requiring an interpreter. Am J Med 2000;108:470–474. 108. Wasserman RC, Inui TS, Barriatua RD, Carter WB, Lip- pincott P. Pediatric clinicians’ support for parents makes a difference: an outcome-based analysis of clinician-par- ent interaction. Pediatrics 1984;74:1047–1053. 109. Camphina-Bacote J. A model and instrument for addressing cultural competence in health care. J Nurs Ed 1999;38:203–220. 110. Brach C, Fraser I. Can cultural competency reduce racial and ethnic disparities? A review and conceptual model. Med Care Res Rev 2000;57(suppl 1):181–210. 111. McCranie EW, Horowitz AJ, Martin RM. Alleged sex- role stereotyping in the assessment of women’s physical complaints: a study of general practitioners. Soc Sci Med 1978;12(2A):111–116. 112. Verbrugge LM, Steiner RP. Physician treatment of men and women patients: sex bias or appropriate care? Med Care 1981;19(6):609–632. 113. Wenger NK, Speroff L, Packard B. Cardiovascular health and disease in women. N Engl J Med 1993;329(4): 247–256. 114. Ayanian JZ, Epstein AM. Differences in the use of procedures between men and women hospitalized for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1991;325:221–225. 115. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Med- ical Association. Gender disparities in clinical decision- making. JAMA 1991;266(4):559–562. 116. Kaplan SH, Gandek B, Greenfield S, Rogers WH, Ware JE Jr. Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians’ participatory decision-making style: results from the medical outcomes study. Med Care 1995;33(12): 1176–1187. 117. Bernstein B, Kane R. Physicians’ attitudes toward female patients. Med Care 1981;19(6):600–608. 118. Bertakis KD, Helms LJ, Callahan EJ, Azari R, Robbins JA. The influence of gender of physician practice style. Med Care 1995;33(4):407–416. [...]... prolonged or at term N-Min N-Min N-Min N-Min N-Min N-Min N-Min TABLE 4.10 Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Drugs FETAL RISK FDA TERIS Heparin Low molecular weight heparin Warfarin Pentoxifylline BREAST-FEEDING C C N-M N-M Safe Safe X C S-M U Compatible Not recommended NEUROLOGIC DISEASE IN WOMEN 52 Although the protracted use of heparin may result in osteoporosis and thrombocytopenia in the mother, there... products and pregnant women Virginia, 1994 Silberstein SD Headaches, pregnancy, and lactation In: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Yankowitz J, Niebyl JR, (eds.) Drug therapy in pregnancy Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 20 01 :23 1 25 4 Ethical conflicts and practical realities Proceedings from the Food and Drug Administration conference on regulated products and pregnant women 1994 Use... neurotransmitter that increases appetite Leptin, which also mediates appetite, is elevated in persons gaining weight on valproate (23 ,30) Individuals gaining weight on valproate may have some degree of underlying insulin resistance This hypothesis is supported by observations that fasting and postprandial insulin and proinsulin levels are elevated in obese adolescents and in adults taking valproate (19 ,20 ,22 ) Persons... 9, 14, 16, 17, 22 , 41, 78 NEUROLOGIC DISEASE IN WOMEN 60 the newborn Lithium is excreted in breast milk and results in serum levels in nursing infants of approximately one-third to one-half the maternal serum levels Several authors (98) have reported toxic effects of lithium in neonates born to women who received lithium during pregnancy Lithium is contraindicated during breast-feeding Paregoric (11)... Steroid hormone binding globulins may also be increased, resulting in a decrease in free hormone levels The failure rate of OCs is 0.7 per 100 women years This rate is increased to 3.1 per 100 women years in women who use high-dose estrogen-containing OCs (50 µg or more) and enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants (47) Because the failure rate is higher when more commonly used, lower estrogen-dose OCs are used,... Lamotrigine is excreted into breast milk No adverse effects have been seen in nursing 54 NEUROLOGIC DISEASE IN WOMEN infants of mothers taking lamotrigine, but the number of known cases is too small to adequately assess the safety of this drug during lactation Monitoring infant serum levels of lamotrigine may be required (11) PHENOBARBITAL (11, 12, 76) Phenobarbital has been in use since 19 12, and phenytoin... drugs for use in lactating women (Table 4.5) ( 12, 45) The following prescribing guidelines should be followed (45): • Is the drug necessary? If so: • Use the safest drug (e.g., acetaminophen instead of aspirin) • If there is a possibility that a drug may present a risk to the infant (e.g., phenytoin, phenobarbital), consider measuring the blood level in the nursing infant • Minimize the nursing infant’s... allowing their infants to breast-feed Narcotic use is compatible with breast-feeding (11, 12, 62) CODEINE (11, 62) Indiscriminate codeine use may present a risk to the fetus during the first or second trimester Cleft lip, cleft palate, dislocated hips, inguinal hernia, and cardiac and respiratory system defects have been reported Codeine passes into breast milk in very small amounts PROPOXYPHENE (11, 62) ... VanWaes M, Finnell RH Prenatal prediction of risk of the fetal hydantoin syndrome N Engl J Med 1990; 322 :1567–15 72 Practice parameter: a guideline for discontinuing antiepileptic drugs in seizure-free patients (summary statement) 1994 Robert E, Biubaud P Maternal valproic acid and congenital neural tube defects Lancet 19 82; 2:937 NEUROLOGIC DISEASE IN WOMEN 62 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Lindhout D,... postprandial insulin levels (21 ,22 ) Lamotrigine is not associated with changes in weight in adults (21 ) or adolescents (23 ) Approximately 50% of persons taking valproate for epilepsy experience significant weight gain, defined as more than 4 kg (24 26 ) Significant weight gain affects children and adolescents, as well as adults (23 ,27 29 ), and is usually evident early in therapy (within 3 to 6 months) The . studies Category X: Contraindicated in pregnancy TABLE 4.3 TERIS Risk Rating N — None (A) UN — Unlikely N-Min — None, minimal (A) Min — Minimal (B) Min-S — Minimal-small (D) S — Small S-Mod — Small-Moderate Mod. by allowing their infants to breast-feed. Nar- cotic use is compatible with breast-feeding (11, 12, 62) . CODEINE (11, 62) . Indiscriminate codeine use may present a risk to the fetus during the first. BREAST-FEEDING Simple Analgesics Aspirin C* N-Min Caution Acetaminophen B N Compatible Caffeine B N-Min Compatible NSAIDs Fenoprofen B* U Compatible Ibuprofen B* N-Min Compatible Indomethacin B*