Women's attitudes and expectations regarding gynaecological examination

Emre Yanikkerem, Meral Ozdemir, Hilal Bingol, Ayşe Tatar, Gülten Karadeniz, Emre Yanikkerem, Meral Ozdemir, Hilal Bingol, Ayşe Tatar, Gülten Karadeniz

Abstract

Objective: to describe women's expectations of doctors and nurses during gynaecological examination, to identify if women have a preference for the doctor's gender, to investigate women's feelings during examination, and to determine why women consult the gynaecological outpatient clinic.

Design: a descriptive and cross-sectional study using a questionnaire administered face to face.

Setting: this study was performed with women recruited from those making an appointment for gynaecological examination at the gynaecological outpatient clinic at Manisa Maternity and Child Hospital between September 2004 and February 2005.

Participants: four hundred and thirty-three women who applied to the gynaecological outpatient clinic at Manisa Maternity and Child Hospital.

Measurements: the questionnaire included questions about the women's socio-demographic and reproductive characteristics, feelings with regard to pelvic examination, expectations of doctors and nurses during gynaecological examination, preferences regarding the gender of the physician, and the reason for the gynaecological examination.

Findings: more than one-half of women felt anxious or worried about their health situation during the pelvic examination (54.8%), and 41.8% of women said that they were embarrassed about having to undress. 45.5% of women reported that they would prefer a female doctor, only 4.2% of women would prefer a male doctor in their obstetric and gynaecological care, and the remaining women (49.9%) expressed no preference. Most women (62.1%) expected the doctor to explain their health situation after examination. 71.8% of women said that the nurse should have an understanding and gentle manner, and 28.2% of women stated that the nurse should offer information to the patient about the pelvic examination.

Key conclusions: it was very important for the women to participate through receiving information during the gynaecological examination. When treated with respect, the women were able to have a positive relationship with the staff. This encourages the women to attend clinics for their own health needs. Gynaecological examination is an essential part of gynaecological care and the most common procedure in gynaecological practice. Many women in the world will have a gynaecological examination several times during their lives, from youth to old age. This study could contribute to improve health programmes to make the gynaecological examination situation more positive for women.

References

    1. ACOG News Release. A report card for ob/gyns: how women rate their doctors. .
    1. Akarer B. Graduate thesis. Ege University School of Nursing; İzmir: 2003. Determination of anxiety level of women aged between 15 and 49 before gynecologic examination.
    1. Bignell CJ. Chaperones for genital examination. British Medical Journal. 1999;319:137–138.
    1. Broadmore J, Carr-Gregg M, Hutton JD. Vaginal examinations: women’s experiences and preferences. The New Zealand Medical Journal. 1986;99:8–10.
    1. Cooke M, Ronalds C. Women doctors in urban general practice: the patients. British Medical Journal. 1985;290:751–754.
    1. Elstad JI. Women’s priorities regarding physician behavior and their preference for a female physician. Women Health. 1994;21:1–19.
    1. Fiddes P, Scott A, Fletcher J, et al. Attitudes towards pelvic examination and chaperones: a questionnaire survey of patients and providers. Contraception. 2003;67:313–317.
    1. Franks P, Bertakis KD. Physician gender, patient gender, and primary care. Journal Womens Health (Larchmt) 2003;12:73–80.
    1. Grover SR, Quinn MA. Is there any value in bimanual pelvic examination as a screening test? The Medical Journal of Australia. 1995;162:408–410.
    1. Heaton CJ, Marquez JT. Patient preferences for physician gender in male genital/rectal exam. Family Practice Research. 1990;10:105–115.
    1. Hilden M, Sidenius K, Langhoff-Roos J, et al. Women’s experiences of the gynecologic examination: factors associated with discomfort. Acta Obstetricia Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2003;82:1030–1036.
    1. Jeppesen U. Kvinders holding til den gynaekologiske undersogelse. (Women’s attitudes towards pelvic examination) Ugeskr Laeger. 1995;157:1651–1654.
    1. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ. Are patients of women physicians screened more aggressively? Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1995;10:119–125.
    1. Lang F. Resident behaviors during observed pelvic examination. Family Medicine. 1990;22:153–155.
    1. Larsen M, Oldeide CC, Materud K. Not so bad after all…..women’s experiences of pelvic examination. Family Practice. 1997;14:148–152.
    1. Larsen SB, Kragstrup J. Expectations and knowledge of pelvic examinations in a random sample of Danish teenagers. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1995a;16:93–99.
    1. Larsen SB, Kragstrup J. Experiences of the first pelvic examination in a random sample of Danish teenagers. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 1995b;74:137–141.
    1. Levy S, Dowling P, Boult L, et al. The effect of physician and patient gender on preventive medicine practices in patients older than fifty. Family Medicine. 1992;24:58–61.
    1. Lunde IM. Patients’ perceptions – a shift in medical perceptive. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. 1993;11:98–104.
    1. Mete SK. The effects of nursing approach to anxiety of women coming in the gynecologic examination. Cumhuriyet University School of Nursing Journal. 1998;2:1–7.
    1. Millstein SG, Adler NE, Jr, Irwin CE. Sources of anxiety about pelvic examinations among adolescent females. Journal of Adolescent Health Care. 1984;5:105–111.
    1. Nylenna M. Why do our patients see us? A study reasons for encounter in general practice. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. 1985;3:155–162.
    1. Olsson HM, Gullberg MT. Fundemental and situational components in a strategy for attaining a positive experience of the pelvic examination: a conceptual approach. Health Care for Women International. 1991;12:415–429.
    1. Philliber SG, Jones J. Staffing a contraceptive service for adolescents: the importance of sex, race and age. Public Health Reports. 1992;97:165–169.
    1. Reddy DM, Wasserman SA. Patient anxiety during gynecologic examinations. Behavioral indicators. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 1997;42:631–636.
    1. Rizk DE, El-Zubeir MA, Al-Dhaheri AM, et al. Determinants of women’s choice of their obstetrician and gynecologist provider in the UAE. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2005;84:48–53.
    1. Schmittdiel J, Selby JV, Grumbach K, et al. Women’s provider preferences for basic gynecology care in a large health maintenance organization. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine. 1999;8:825–833.
    1. Seymore C, DuRant RH, Jay MS, et al. Influence of position during examination, and sex of examiner on patient anxiety during pelvic examination. The Journal of Pediatrics. 1986;108:312–317.
    1. Şirin A, Nar M. The investigation of the anxiety levels of women before the gynecologic examination. Ege University School of Nursing Journal. 1999;15:115–126.
    1. Torrance C, Bas R, Allison MA. Use of chaperones in clinics for genitourinary medicine: survey of consultants. British Medical Journal. 1999;319:159–160.
    1. van Elderen T, Maes S, Rouneau C, et al. Perceived gender differences in physician consulting behavior during internal examination. Family Practice. 1998;15:147–152.
    1. Webb R, Opdahl M. Breast and pelvic examinations: easing women’s discomfort. Canadian Family Physician. 1996;42:54–58.
    1. Wendt E, Fridlund B, Lidell E. Trust and confirmation in a gynecologic examination situation: a critical incident technique analysis. Acta Obstetricia Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2004;83:1208–1215.
    1. Wijma B, Gulleberg M, Kjessler B. Attitudes towards pelvic examinations in a random sample of Swedish women. Acta Obstetricia Gynecologica Scandinavica. 1998;77:422–428.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner