ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2016
Chaperone use amongst UK urological surgeons - an evaluation of current practice and opinion.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic and Digital Rectal Examinations to Evaluate Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Use of medical chaperones by colon and rectal surgeons in outpatient practice.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Chaperones Utilization in Clinical Practice: Intimate and Sensitive Physical Examination Best Practice Strategies and Concepts in Modern Urological Medicine.Health psychology research · 2022Article
- Student Pharmacists' Perceptions of Male Faculty Teaching Female-Specific Sex and Gender Health Topics.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Intimate examinations are routinely performed by urologists as part of clinical practice. To protect patients and doctors, the General Medical Council offers guidance on the use of chaperones for intimate examinations. We assessed the opinions and use of chaperones amongst members of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS). Methods An online questionnaire comprising 12 questions on the use of chaperones in clinical practice was sent to all full, trainee and speciality doctor members of BAUS. Results The questionnaire had a response rate of 26% (n=331). The majority of respondents were consultant urologists, comprising 78.8% (n=261), with a wide range of years of experience. Of the respondents, 38.9% were not aware of the GMC guidance on chaperones. While 72.5% always used a chaperone., 22.9% never use a chaperone when the patient was of the same sex. Chaperones were most commonly used for intimate examinations (64.6%), and for examinations involving members of the opposite sex (77.3%). A majority of respondents felt that chaperones protect both the patient (77.3%), and the doctor (96.6%). However, 42.5% did not feel that using a chaperone assists the doctor's examination, and some (17.2%) participants felt that chaperones were unnecessary. Conclusions This study shows considerable variability amongst urologists in their use of chaperones. A significant proportion of respondents were not aware of the GMC guidelines and did not regularly use a chaperone during an intimate examination. In addition, practice appears to be gender biased. Further study and education is suggested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.