ORAL ABSTRACT PRESENTATIONS S-1. Evaluation of a Discussion Guide to Promote Understanding of Menopause and Informed Decision Making

S-1. Evaluation of a Discussion Guide to Promote Understanding of Menopause and Informed Decision Making Emma Andrews2, Stacy C. Bailey1, Candida Halton3,4, Michael Wolf1. 1Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; 2Pfizer, New York City, NY; 3Psychology, University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom; 4Studio Health Ltd., London, United Kingdom Objective: Patient-provider communication surrounding menopause is often limited. We developed and evaluated a low-literacy Discussion Guide to educate patients about menopause symptoms and symptom management. Design: A two-arm, cross-sectional randomized trial was conducted among 100 English-speaking women, aged 45-60, who had experienced symptoms of perimenopause. Participants were randomly assigned to review either the Discussion Guide or a standard material (n=50 per arm) and to complete a 13-item ‘open book’ knowledge questionnaire. Participants also completed a health literacy assessment and rated the appearance, quality, and content of both the Discussion Guide and the standard material. Bivariate analyses were conducted to examine women’s menopause knowledge and satisfaction by study arm, and then across sociodemographic characteristics. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were performed to test the effectiveness of the Discussion Guide to improve knowledge scores, and achieve 85% comprehension, compared to the standard. Results: Women receiving the Discussion Guide demonstrated significantly higher knowledge scores compared to those who reviewed the standard (Mean (M)=20.0, Standard Deviation (SD)=2.7) vs. M=18.1, SD=2.6; p<0.001); 82.0% of those exposed to the Discussion Guide correctly answered ≥85% of knowledge items compared to 48.0% of those reviewing the standard material (p<0.001). In multivariable analyses, participants who received the Discussion Guide displayed significantly greater knowledge in comparison to those receiving the standard material, regardless of whether knowledge was a score (B=1.9, 95% CI: 0.9-2.9, p<0.001) or a threshold (Odds Ratio: 5.7, 95% CI: 2.0-16.2, p<0.001). Limited health literacy was not independently associated with knowledge. More than two-thirds of women (68%) preferred the Discussion Guide; it was rated highly in terms of content, appearance, and ease-of-use. Conclusion: The Discussion Guide improved understanding of menopause symptoms and treatment options in comparison to a current standard and was wellreceived by a diverse audience. Additional research is needed to evaluate it in actual use. Sources of Funding: Pfizer, Inc