Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28040449›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2017

Women's beliefs about the purpose and value of routine pelvic examinations.

Laura L Norrell, Miriam Kuppermann, Michelle N Moghadassi, George F Sawaya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura L NorrellDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Miriam KuppermannDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Michelle N MoghadassiDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
George F SawayaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: george.sawaya@ucsf.edu.

Funding

Using comparative effectiveness analyses to optimize cervical cancer screeningR01CA169093 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SAWAYA, GEORGE F · 2013 to 2016
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA169093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that a pelvic examination be offered to asymptomatic women after an informed discussion with their provider. Although the adverse health outcomes that the examination averts were not delineated, the organization stated that it helps establish open communication between patients and physicians. Recent surveys have focused on obstetrician-gynecologists' attitudes and beliefs about the examination, but the perspectives of women have not been well-characterized.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to better understand women's beliefs about the purpose and value of routine pelvic examinations. STUDY

designWe completed structured interviews with 262 women who were 21-65 years old who agreed to participate in a 50-minute interview about cervical cancer screening. Recruitment took place in outpatient women's clinics at a public hospital and an academic medical center in San Francisco, CA. Women were shown an illustration of a bimanual pelvic examination and asked a series of closed-ended questions: if they knew why it was performed, if it reassured them of their health, and if they believed it helped establish open communication with their provider. Women were asked an open-ended question about their perception of the examination's purpose. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify demographic predictors of responses.

resultsApproximately one-half of the participants (56%) stated that they knew the examination's purpose. The most frequently cited reason was assurance of normalcy. Most of participants (82%) believed that the examination reassured them of their health. Approximately two-thirds of the participants (62%) believed that the examination helps establish open communication with their provider. In multivariate analyses, older age (≥45 years) independently predicted a higher likelihood of a belief that they knew the examination's purpose (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-5.6) and a belief that it facilitates open communication (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.9). Non-white race also was associated with a belief that the examination helps facilitate open communication between patients and providers (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.1).

conclusionApproximately one-half of the women who participated in our study reported not knowing the purpose of the pelvic examination, yet most of them believed it to be of some value, especially reassurance of health. To achieve shared, informed decision-making, clinicians will need to communicate better to their patients the examination's purpose.

Indexed as

Gynecological ExaminationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedAttitude to HealthCommunicationFemaleGenital Diseases, FemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPhysician-Patient RelationsSan FranciscoSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical Neoplasmspatient preferenceroutine pelvic examination

Identifiers

PMID28040449
PMCPMC6420304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.