4.6 Article

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

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.015

Keywords

bimanual pelvic examination; cancer screening; clinical practice; provider views

Funding

  1. University of California, San Francisco
  2. Mt. Zion Health Foundation
  3. Dr Henderson's Mentored Research Scientist Development Award in Population Research [K01HD054495]
  4. National Institutes of Health/National Center for Research Resources/Office of the Director, University of California, San Francisco-Clinical and Translational Science Institute [KL2 RR024130]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available