ArticleFamily medicine2024
Novel Performance Rating Instruments for Gynecological Procedures in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.
Article in Family medicine, 2024. 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.
- Vulvar punch biopsy for evaluating vulvar dermatoses in primary care: Procedural guide.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Review
- Teaching Women's Health in Family Medicine.Family medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesImproving training and confirming the acquisition of gynecological procedure skills for family physicians (FPs) is crucial for safe health care delivery. The objectives of this study were to (a) develop performance rating instruments for four gynecological procedures, and (b) pilot them to provide preliminary validity evidence using modern validity theory.
methodsSixteen academic FPs and gynecologists participated in a modified Delphi technique to develop procedure-specific checklists (PSCs) for four procedures: intrauterine device insertion, endometrial biopsy, punch biopsy of the vulva, and routine pessary care. We modified a previously validated global rating scale (GRS) for ambulatory settings. Using prerecorded videos, 19 academic FPs piloted instruments to rate one first-year and one second-year family medicine resident's performance. They were blinded to the level of training. We compared the mean scores for PSCs and GRS for each procedure using paired samples t tests and Cohen's d to estimate effect sizes.
resultsConsensus on items for the final PSCs was reached after two Delphi rounds. PSC and GRS scores were numerically higher for the second-year resident than the first-year resident for every procedure, with statistically significant differences for six of eight comparisons (P<.05). All comparisons demonstrated large effect sizes (Cohen's d>0.8). Both instruments received high scores for ease of use by raters.
conclusionsWe developed novel performance rating instruments for four gynecological procedures and provided preliminary validity evidence for their use for formative feedback in a simulation setting. This pilot study suggests that these instruments may facilitate the training and documentation of family medicine trainees' skills in gynecological procedures.
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.