Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38570870›Full record

SynthesisBMC women's health2024

A mixed methods systematic literature review of barriers and facilitators to help-seeking among women with stigmatised pelvic health symptoms.

Clare Jouanny, Purva Abhyankar, Margaret Maxwell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Women's Experiences of Recurrent UTIs: A Qualitative Study of Preventive Management and Decision Support Needs.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. State-of-the-Art Review: Managing Vulvovaginal Candidiasis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Postnatal Prolapse Care in the UK: A Qualitative Study.Journal of primary care & community health
    Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Clare JouannyFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland. clj1@stir.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4959-5901
Purva AbhyankarDepartment of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0779-6588
Margaret MaxwellThe Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3318-9500

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/P000681/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen's pelvic health is a globally important subject, included in international and United Kingdom health policies, emphasising the importance of improving information and access to pelvic health services. Consequences of pelvic symptoms are intimate, personal, and varied, often causing embarrassment and shame, affecting women's quality of life and wellbeing.

aimTo understand the experience of seeking healthcare for stigmatised pelvic health symptoms by synthesising all types of published primary research and mapping the results to behavioural theory, to identify potential targets for intervention.

methodsSystematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, PubMED databases, CDSR and CENTRAL registers, from inception to May 2023 for all types of research capturing women's views and experiences of seeking help with stigmatised urogenital and bowel symptoms. Studies only reporting prevalence, predictors of help-seeking, non-health related help-seeking, or written in languages other than English, German, French, Spanish and Swedish were excluded. Reference checking and forward citation searching for all included studies was performed. A results-based synthesis approach was used to integrate quantitative and qualitative data. Themes were mapped to the Common-Sense model and Candidacy framework. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation - Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research for assessing certainty of review findings.

results86 studies representing over 20,000 women from 24 high income countries were included. Confidence was high that barriers to help-seeking were similar across all study types and pelvic symptoms: stigma, lack of knowledge, women's perception that clinicians dismissed their symptoms, and associated normalising and deprioritising of low bother symptoms. Supportive clinicians and increased knowledge were key facilitators.

conclusionsUsing the Common-Sense Model to explore women's help-seeking behaviour with stigmatised pelvic symptoms reveals problems with cognitive representation of symptom identity, emotional representations of embarrassment and shame, and a subjective norm that women believe their symptoms will be trivialised by clinicians. Together these barriers frustrate women's identification of their candidacy for healthcare. Addressing these issues through behavioural change interventions for women and clinicians, will help to achieve universal access to pelvic healthcare services (United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.7). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021256956.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareSocial StigmaFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHelp-Seeking BehaviorHumansPelvic PainQuality of LifeCommon-sense modelHealthcareHelp-seekingPelvic symptomsStigma

Identifiers

PMID38570870
PMCPMC10993589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.