ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2023
What influences GPs' use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Virtual reality or personal computer-based gynecologic pelvic exam simulation: medical student preferences.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Barriers to diagnosing and treating vulval lichen sclerosus: a survey study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOmission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs.
aimTo determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs' experience of PEs in practice. DESIGN AND
settingQualitative semi-structured interview study conducted in one health board in Scotland (mixed urban and rural) with an approximate population of 500 000.
methodInterviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone between March and June 2019. Framework analysis used the COM-B behaviour change model concepts of capability, opportunity, and motivation.
resultsData was compatible with all three domains of the COM-B framework. Capability related to training in and maintenance of skills. These went beyond carrying out the examination to interpreting it reliably. Opportunity related to the clinical environment and the provision of chaperones for intimate examination. Interviewees described a range of motivations towards or against PEs that were unrelated to either capability or opportunity. These all related to providing high-quality care, but this was defined in different ways: 'doing what is best for the individual', 'doctors examine', and 'GPs as pragmatists'.
conclusionGPs' reasons for carrying out, or not carrying out, PEs in women with symptoms potentially indicating cancer are complex. The COM-B framework provides a way of understanding this complexity. Interventions to increase the use of PEs, and critics of its non-use, need to consider these multiple factors.
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.