Literature DB >> 23159688

Routine bimanual pelvic examinations: practices and beliefs of US obstetrician-gynecologists.

Jillian T Henderson1, Cynthia C Harper, Sarah Gutin, Mona Saraiya, Jocelyn Chapman, George F Sawaya.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Less-than-annual cervical cancer screening is now recommended for most US women, raising questions about the need for routine annual bimanual pelvic examinations. Little is known about clinicians' bimanual pelvic examination practices, their beliefs about its importance, or the reasoning underlying its performance in asymptomatic women. STUDY
DESIGN: We conducted a nationwide survey of US obstetrician-gynecologists. Respondents (n = 521) reported their examination practices and beliefs based on vignettes for asymptomatic women across the lifespan.
RESULTS: Nearly all obstetrician-gynecologists perform bimanual pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women across the lifespan, although it is viewed as less important for a newly sexually active 18-year-old. Reasons cited as very important included adherence to standard medical practices (45%), patient reassurance (49%), detection of ovarian cancer (47%), and identification of benign uterine (59%) and ovarian (54%) conditions.
CONCLUSION: Obstetrician-gynecologists perform bimanual pelvic examinations in the vast majority of asymptomatic women, but the importance placed on the examinations and reasons for conducting them vary.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23159688      PMCID: PMC4350675          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  19 in total

1.  The pelvic examination as a screening tool: practices of US physicians.

Authors:  Analía R Stormo; Nikki A Hawkins; Crystale Purvis Cooper; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-12-12

2.  Physicians' perceptions, preparedness for reporting, and experiences related to impaired and incompetent colleagues.

Authors:  Catherine M DesRoches; Sowmya R Rao; John A Fromson; Robert J Birnbaum; Lisa Iezzoni; Christine Vogeli; Eric G Campbell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Pelvic examinations and access to oral hormonal contraception.

Authors:  Jillian T Henderson; George F Sawaya; Maya Blum; Laura Stratton; Cynthia C Harper
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Patient-centered care and preference-sensitive decision making.

Authors:  Carla C Keirns; Susan Dorr Goold
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 109: Cervical cytology screening.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Committee opinion No. 534: well-woman visit.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Do new guidelines and technology make the routine pelvic examination obsolete?

Authors:  Carolyn L Westhoff; Heidi E Jones; Maryam Guiahi
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Physician characteristics and beliefs associated with use of pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women.

Authors:  Analía Romina Stormo; Crystale Purvis Cooper; Nikki A Hawkins; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality.

Authors:  J W Peabody; J Luck; P Glassman; T R Dresselhaus; M Lee
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-05       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Saundra S Buys; Edward Partridge; Amanda Black; Christine C Johnson; Lois Lamerato; Claudine Isaacs; Douglas J Reding; Robert T Greenlee; Lance A Yokochi; Bruce Kessel; E David Crawford; Timothy R Church; Gerald L Andriole; Joel L Weissfeld; Mona N Fouad; David Chia; Barbara O'Brien; Lawrence R Ragard; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Patricia Hartge; Paul F Pinsky; Claire S Zhu; Grant Izmirlian; Barnett S Kramer; Anthony B Miller; Jian-Lun Xu; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 157.335

View more
  4 in total

1.  Obstetrician-gynecologists' beliefs about performing less cervical cancer screening: the pendulum swings.

Authors:  Allison Schneider; Jillian T Henderson; Cynthia C Harper; Amy Hsu; Mona Saraiya; George F Sawaya
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  A need for improved understanding about USPSTF and other evidence-based recommendations.

Authors:  Mona Saraiya; Vicki Benard; Mary White
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Contraceptive use by women across different sexual orientation groups.

Authors:  Brittany M Charlton; Elizabeth Janiak; Audrey J Gaskins; Amy D DiVasta; Rachel K Jones; Stacey A Missmer; Jorge E Chavarro; Vishnudas Sarda; Margaret Rosario; S Bryn Austin
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2019-05-11       Impact factor: 3.375

4.  Delayed Visits for Contraception Due to Concerns Regarding Pelvic Examination Among Women with History of Intimate Partner Violence.

Authors:  Hunter K Holt; George F Sawaya; Alison M El Ayadi; Jillian T Henderson; Corinne H Rocca; Carolyn L Westhoff; Cynthia C Harper
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 6.473

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.