Advertisement

Menopause pp 333-342 | Cite as

The Health Challenges at Menopause and Midlife: Sustainability, ICT Technology and Patient Empowerment

  • Antonio Cano
  • Vicente TraverEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The implementation of lifestyle is a most cost-effective approach to the management of menopause. Physical activity, for example, may be an appropriate measure to reduce the risk of osteoporosis and other non-communicable diseases affected by menopause. The difficulty with physical activity and other lifestyle measures is often the poor long-term adherence. There are several studies addressing the issue and describing the main variables that impact adherence. Both changes in the strategy, activity program, or even behavioural changes supported by psychological techniques, have been demonstrated to have an impact, though still limited.

New information and communication technology (ICT) is being proposed as a powerful enabler to increase empowerment and reduce cost. The virtual support groups may be a reality, and several recent attempts have shown a potential role for that approach. There is, however, much to be done, the illiteracy of some women to that form of technology being a barrier.

References

  1. 1.
    Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, Manson JE, Rimm EB, Willett WC. Primary prevention of coronary heart disease in women through diet and lifestyle. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:16–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruiz-Cabello P, Coll-Risco I, Acosta-Manzano P, Borges-Cosic M, Gallo-Vallejo FJ, Aranda P, et al. Influence of the degree of adherence to the Mediterranean diet on the cardiometabolic risk in peri and menopausal women. The Flamenco project. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2016 27(3):217-224. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0939475316301934. Nov (cited 2017 Feb 15)
  3. 3.
    Chomistek AK, Chiuve SE, Eliassen AH, Mukamal KJ, Willett WC, Rimm EB. Healthy lifestyle in the primordial prevention of cardiovascular disease among young women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:43–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khera AV, Emdin CA, Drake I, Natarajan P, Bick AG, Cook NR, et al. Genetic risk, adherence to a healthy lifestyle, and coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2349–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Warren GW, Sobus S, Gritz ER. The biological and clinical effects of smoking by patients with cancer and strategies to implement evidence-based tobacco cessation support. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e568–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Molas S, DeGroot SR, Zhao-Shea R, Tapper AR. Anxiety and nicotine dependence: emerging role of the Habenulo-Interpeduncular Axis. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2017;38:169–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatsukami DK, Stead LF, Gupta PC. Tobacco addiction. Lancet. 2008;371:2027–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendoza N, De Teresa C, Cano A, Godoy D, Hita-Contreras F, Lapotka M, et al. Benefits of physical exercise in postmenopausal women. Maturitas. 2016;93:83–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woodward MJ, Lu CW, Levandowski R, Kostis J, Bachmann G. The exercise prescription for enhancing overall health of midlife and older women. Maturitas. 2015;82:65–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pedersen BK, Febbraio MA. Muscles, exercise and obesity: skeletal muscle as a secretory organ. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2012;8:457–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380:247–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    WHO. The European health report 2012 [Internet]. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/197113/EHR2012-Eng.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
  13. 13.
    Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [Internet]. https://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/tool.jsp, Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
  14. 14.
    Assessing Cardiovascular Risk: Systematic Evidence Review from the Risk Assessment Work Group—NHLBI, NIH [Internet]. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/risk-assessment/. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
  15. 15.
    WHO. Global recommendation on physical activity for health [Internet]. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44399/1/9789241599979_eng.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
  16. 16.
    Pavey T, Taylor A, Hillsdon M, Fox K, Campbell J, Foster C, et al. Levels and predictors of exercise referral scheme uptake and adherence: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:737–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rodrigues IB, Armstrong JJ, Adachi JD, MacDermid JC. Facilitators and barriers to exercise adherence in patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:735–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farrance C, Tsofliou F, Clark C. Adherence to community based group exercise interventions for older people: a mixed-methods systematic review. Prev Med. 2016;87:155–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morgan F, Battersby A, Weightman AL, Searchfield L, Turley R, Morgan H, et al. Adherence to exercise referral schemes by participants—what do providers and commissioners need to know? A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2016;16:227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stonerock GL, Blumenthal JA. Role of counseling to promote adherence in healthy Lifestyle medicine: strategies to improve exercise adherence and enhance Physical activity. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;59(5):455–62. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033062016301050. Sep [cited 2017 Feb 23]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller WR, Rose GS. Toward a theory of motivational interviewing. Am Psychol. 2009;64:527–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Physical activity: exercise referral schemes [Internet]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph54/resources/physical-activity-exercise-referral-schemes-1996418406085. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
  23. 23.
    Im E-O, Lee Y, Chee E, Chee W. Web-based interventions for menopause: a systematic integrated literature review. Maturitas. 2017;95:24–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jane FM, Davis SR. A practitioner’s toolkit for managing the menopause. Climacteric. 2014;17:564–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Müller A, Khoo S. Non-face-to-face physical activity interventions in older adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ashworth NL, Chad KE, Harrison EL, Reeder BA, Marshall SC. Home versus center based physical activity programs in older adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;1:CD004017.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bock C, Jarczok MN, Litaker D. Community-based efforts to promote physical activity: a systematic review of interventions considering mode of delivery, study quality and population subgroups. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17:276–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bittar ST, Maeda SS, Marone MMS, Santili C. Physical exercises with free weights and elastic bands can improve body composition parameters in postmenopausal women: WEB protocol with a randomized controlled trial. Menopause. 2016;23:383–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barak A, Boniel-Nissim M, Suler J. Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Comput Human Behav. 2008;24:1867–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Laranjo L, Arguel A, Neves AL, Gallagher AM, Kaplan R, Mortimer N, et al. The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22:243–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams G, Hamm MP, Shulhan J, Vandermeer B, Hartling L. Social media interventions for diet and exercise behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e003926.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rothert M, Padonu G, Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Talarczyk G, Rovner D, et al. Menopausal women as decision makers in health care. Exp Gerontol. 1994;29:463–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yazdkhasti M, Simbar M, Abdi F. Empowerment and coping strategies in menopause women: a review. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015;17:e18944.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Traver V, Fernandez-Luque L, Grajales III FJ, Karlsen R. The paradigm shift: the roles of patient 2.0 in today’s healthcare systems. In: 6th edition of the International Workshop on Wearable Micro and Nano Technologies for Personalised Health—pHealth 2009. Proceedings [Internet]. Oslo; 2009, p. 53. http://www.sintef.no/globalassets/project/phealth2009/phealth-2009-programme_final.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
  35. 35.
    Edwards M, Davies M, Edwards A. What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: a meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75:37–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hack TF, Degner LF, Watson P, Sinha L. Do patients benefit from participating in medical decision making? Longitudinal follow-up of women with breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2006;15:9–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stacey D, Samant R, Bennett C. Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:293–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baxter C. Enhancing CareKit Apps. In:Beginning carekit development [Internet]. Berkeley: Apress; 2016. p. 165–8. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4842-2226-3_9. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stephen K, Cumming GP. Searching for pelvic floor muscle exercises on YouTube: what individuals may find and where this might fit with health service programmes to promote continence. Menopause Int. 2012;18:110–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Orgad S. The transformative potential of online communication: the case of breast cancer patients’ internet spaces. Feminist Media Stud. 2005;5:141–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lupton D. The commodification of patient opinion: the digital patient experience economy in the age of big data. Sociol Health Illn. 2014;36:856–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Swan M. Health 2050: the realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory Biocitizen. J Pers Med. 2012;2:93–118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reed M, Anderson C. Evaluation of patient information internet web sites about menopause and hormone replacement therapy. Maturitas. 2002;43:135–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brown JB, Carroll J, Boon H, Marmoreo J. Women’s decision-making about their health care: views over the life cycle. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:225–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    MacPherson KI. Menopause on the internet: building knowledge and community on-line. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1997;20:66–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sandvik H. Health information and interaction on the internet: a survey of female urinary incontinence. BMJ. 1999;319:29–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and GynecologyInstitute of Investigation INCLIVA, University of Valencia, and Service of Obstetrics and GynecologyValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Instituto Universitario de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones (ITACA)Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Unidad Mixta de Reingeniería de Procesos Sociosanitarios (eRPSS)Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La FeValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations