Gender Disparities Persist in Treatment of Stroke

[ismnotwasm]

TUESDAY, Feb. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Significant gender differences continue to persist with stroke, not only in its incidence, but also in its prevention and treatment.


Among other things, women with stroke are more likely to experience emergency room delays and less likely to be treated aggressively for risk factors beforehand, according to a raft of studies coming out in a specially themed April issue of Stroke. The findings were released this week to coincide with Go Red for Women Day.


"I find it shocking that we are constantly speaking to women about empowering themselves, and then we look at the other side, and these doctors aren't delivering the care that these women need," said Dr. Suzanne Steinbaum, director of Women & Heart Disease at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "We know that women who have atrial fibrillation need to be on blood thinners. Only 64 percent of women in atrial fibrillation were on blood thinners to prevent stroke. Across the board, this is the standard of care."


"There's a treatment gap and an awareness gap," said Dr. Lori Mosca, spokeswoman for the American Heart Association's Go Red for Women director of preventive cardiology at New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. "Women are more disabled by stroke, the consequences of stroke in women are greater than they are in men. The data really parallel what we see in heart disease. Women are less likely to get treated with therapies that have been proven to really benefit them."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090211/hl_hsn/genderdisparitiespersistintreatmentofstroke;_ylt=ApYGzkn.DMRxi7oX8U.wRN.3j7AB


I'm posting this because I've actually seen women who have been dismissed as having "anxiety" when that wasn't what their symptoms were at all. There are gender disparities in heart attack treatment as well. We take all cardiac symptoms seriously, but there have been a couple of cases on my floor where nurses had to be very proactive and aggressive to get the Docs to respond appropriately. To be fair, these were complicated patients. But still.

I've been questioning (as appropriate) my female patients with cardiac histories, especially the ones in an unexpected age group what their experiences were, and often as not there was a general "anxiety" type dismissal and then there was that EMT, that nurse, that doctor who stopped and really looked and listened and saved a life. I shudder when I think further, to the racial disparities, the socio-economic ones, the women with mental illness histories. What would those statistics be?

Let's take care of ourselves and our sisters out there.





Some info here, (although I HAVE to say it, the stupid "little red dress" symbol is puke making for me. If it works to bring awareness, though, I'm sure I'll learn to live with it)
http://www.goredforwomen.com/
http://www.goredforwomen.com/uploadedFiles/marquee/911%20study%201-13-09.pdf

[EFerrari]

1. Some study that found people who wear red get more attention

hit the media a while ago. That's probably where the red dress comes from.

I'm really glad you posted this. I had the experience of being told I was just neurotic when I was quite ill and bet that a lot of women have it. It's frightening to think how common it must be.

[ThomCat]

2. I have seen first hand

that women with the same exact symptoms as me will get less care, will be doubted more and treated with more skepticism, and will be offered reduced levels of care and lower levels of intervention than me.

My pain meds will be escallated faster to adequately treat my severe pain while women will be told that lower level painkillers are adequate and they just "need to give them time to work."

I'll be offered tests immediately, where women are more often referred to psychiatrists. Note to pain doctors: It's not their heads. It's pain! Treat their pain, Damn it!

If I'm seeing this blatantly, then I'm sure it's there across the board for other types of care too.


We need more of these studies to take the medical industry apart for the discrimination people face. x(

[bliss_eternal]

3. Thank you for saying this...

:thumbsup::hug:

I've attempted to talk about this to a degree in this forum (quite a while ago), based on my less than stellar experiences w/healthcare. Unfortunately at the time, I felt censored by a member that felt the need to share (and bully me with) their former identity as a nurse. Apparently there coud be no validity to my comments, because their "nursing experience" was omnipotent--and gave them a crystal ball, and the magical ability to know exactly how all doctors would behave in all situations and cases. :eyes:

It was frustating to attempt to share personal experiences w/the male dominated health care system in the feminism forum, only to feel dismissed by someone needing to fulfil some unconscious sense of obligation to "the system."

I wrote it off as their being one of countless women that worked in nursing in that grand and glorious time that trained them (as female staff) to cater to the (male) doctors no matter what. I know of many women that worked in nursing in that time that attest to being taught to defend them, to defer to them as the "uber gods" they believed themselves to be and even to clean up some of their messes. :scared:

[bluedawg12]

4. There's some really useful information in this article.

The risk factors are nicely identified, atrial fib and hypertension, lack of activity or relative imobility seemed to preceed a stroke, strokes occur in women at an older age than men, but when it happens it seems to be more disabling and the article lists the warning symptoms. It seems like a very useful article to post for a number of reasons. Knowledge is power and women can demand attention be brought to their pre-existing conditions and risk factors be properly treated, as well as, knowing the warning signs.

>>Risk factors also differed:

* men (were) more likely to have coronary artery disease, high cholesterol, diabetes, narrowing of the blood vessels and to be smokers,
* women were more likely to have atrial fibrillation and hypertension as contributing factors.


A new analysis of data from The Framingham Heart Study found that women:
tended to be older than men (75.1 vs. 71.1) at the time of their first stroke;
had more strokes after the age of 85 than men, although fewer in other age brackets
and a higher incidence overall.

Women tended to have more trouble dressing, grooming and moving from a bed to a chair both before, during and after a stroke.

Women with acute stroke were delayed longer in emergency rooms and were less likely to experience some of the warning signs of a stroke.

"We've done a good job teaching people about symptoms of a heart attack. We need to have a similar message for stroke," Mosca said.

"A lot of people don't realize if you have numbness or loss of function in your face, arms, legs, one side of your body or you have a sudden headache, these things can actually indicate a stroke, so it's hugely important for you to call 911. The warning signs are not on the radar screen as they are for heart attack."

Women showed a troubling lack of knowledge when it came to identifying risk factors for stroke or knowing what behaviors might actually prevent such an eventuality. The women in the study, who were mostly white, also tended to underestimate their risk. <<

[bliss_eternal]

5. Given...

...that a search of your name showed no other posts in this forum prior to Saturday night (Feb. 28) I think I can smell a snow job.
But it's cute that you made the effort and all.

:hi:

[bluedawg12]

6. Bliss thank you

a snow job? For what end?

Not that it's not snowing in March just about now, but what would be the motive?

I actually ran across two articles of interest, this one and the 5 month old baby study on spatial perception.

You know, as long as I was over having a lovely cup of coffee with the women of the forum on another happy little thread, it seemed like a fine way to while a way the moments on something of use and interest.

I'm going to write that stroke article up for our local paper.

peace, Blissy

dawger :hi:

[bliss_eternal]

7. No arguments here.

Who (or what) will I believe,you.....or my lying eyes?

Peace to you as well,
bliss :spray:


edited and revised for clarity.

[bluedawg12]

8. I am so happy

because interpreting people's motives is always fraught with such risk.

It's better to stick to the topic at hand.

peace

:hi:

[Vanje]

9. self-delete

Not worth it.

[bliss_eternal]

10. .

.

[Shakespeare]

11. WTF?

That's pretty rude, bliss. I read this forum religiously, but very rarely post (same with the photography group, although I exchange a healthy number of PMs about lenses, exposure, etc. with two of the photog members).

I see nothing at ALL wrong with bluedawg's post, and hardly think he deserved such a rude "welcome."

[bliss_eternal]

12. What you think...

of me and my post, is none of my business. In other words, I couldn't care less what your opinion is of me.
I'd appreciate it considerably if you'd mind your business--and butt out of mine.

Second of all, given that your first post was on Saturday in that train wreck pos thread, forgive me for ignoring you and your concerns for my ettiquette. Bye now, instigator.

[Shakespeare]

13. bliss, I've been here for, what, 8 years now?

Originally as Not_over_it. You and I have never so much as disagreed in a subthread anywhere on DU that I can recall, so I'm a little taken aback by your accusation. I'm not exactly an "instigator." :eyes:

But, hey, nice to know I'm not welcome here, either. I honestly DO NOT understand what you take issue with in bluedawg's post--they further excerpted what is a really helpful article. And that's bad how, exactly?

JFC, what on EARTH has happened to this place....

[bliss_eternal]

14. Sorry...

had to change that message. Revising.

On edit--
You'll have to excuse me, but no matter how long you've been here how I speak or address anyone else, anywhere on this forum is between me and them. You're entitled to feel however you like about it. But kindly, don't expect me to care.

If you have an issue w/how I speak to or with you...feel free to bring that to me.

I don't like hypocrites (not talking about you).
I don't like seeing people piss all over others or their space, while conveniently forgetting that not so long ago some of the very people that enjoy this forum have stood at their side and supported their efforts in other areas of this board.

What happened in this group over the weekend was a blatant flame attack, from people who've never posted here before. If I had any sense any were here based on their own personal interest, I doubt I'd be so angry. But it's clear why they came to anyone with eyes and a brain.

A valid (interesting) discussion was destroyed because some lack the ability to accept a difference of opinion. Why doesn't matter. On a very personal level, I feel disrespected--and I'm pissed about it.

Because I'm angry, perhaps now is not the best time to be calling my manners into question.

[Shakespeare]

15. If you're more comfortable with that, absolutely.

This isn't the first time I've been stunned by the reaction to a newbie here (as I said, I've always been a reader here, I just don't post--that's the same with several other group forums on DU). And seeing that kind of reaction--and then getting your initial response to me--makes me want to leave this forum and never come back. Good lord, I've been here from the beginning, I've always been a staunch feminist, GLBT supporter, etc., and *I'm* greeted accusingly and with suspicion?

I think a very wrong-headed assumption is being made simply because of the thread I chose to post in. That's not a very smart (or fair) thing to do.

[bliss_eternal]

16. Open apologies to Shakespeare...

:hug:

[Shakespeare]

17. No apology needed, bliss.

We understand each other, and that's a good thing. :hug:

[bliss_eternal]

18. ............

:pals::hug:

:hi: