ArticleBMJ open2020
Is healthcare-seeking with gynaecological alarm symptoms influenced by personal and professional relations? A Danish population-based, cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify the personal and professional relations of women experiencing gynaecological alarm symptoms, to analyse if involving a personal relation is related to healthcare-seeking with gynaecological alarm symptoms, and to analyse if having an available social network is associated with involvement of this relation.
designWeb-based, population-based, cross-sectional questionnaire survey.
settingThe general population in Denmark.
participantsThe study invited 100 000 individuals randomly drawn from the Danish Civil Registration System. Pregnant women and women who did not answer relevant questions about social network were excluded. A total of 5053 women who experienced at least one gynaecological alarm symptom were included in the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (1) Personal and professional relations that women experiencing gynaecological alarm symptoms involve; (2) the association between involving a personal relation and healthcare-seeking; and (3) the association between having an available social network and involvement of this relation.
resultsThe general practitioner (GP) was the most involved professional relation, while the spouse/partner was the most involved personal relation. When experiencing gynaecological alarm symptoms, more than 50% of women did not involve a professional relation and 20% did not involve a personal relation. For all four gynaecological alarm symptoms, the odds of involving the GP were higher in the oldest age group. Women were two to seven times more likely to involve their GP if they had personal relation involvement. No statistically significant association was found between having an available social network and involving the GP.
conclusionInvolving a personal relation in healthcare-seeking was associated with increased involvement of the GP, who consequently was the most involved professional relation when experiencing gynaecological alarm symptoms. Spouse/partner was the most involved personal relation. The oldest age group had the highest odds of involving the GP. No association was found between having an available social network and involving the GP.
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.