4.8 Article

Emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in patients visiting gynaecology clinics:: a Nordic cross-sectional study

Journal

LANCET
Volume 361, Issue 9375, Pages 2107-2113

Publisher

LANCET LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13719-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Abuse against women causes much suffering for individuals and is a major concern for society. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of three types of abuse in patients visiting gynaecology clinics in five Nordic countries, and to assess the frequency with which gynaecologists identify abuse victims. Methods We did a cross-sectional, multicentre study of women attending five departments of gynaecology in Denmark. Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. We recruited 4729 patients; 3641 (77%) responded and were included in the study. Participants completed a postal questionnaire (norvold abuse questionnaire) confidentially. Primary outcome measures were prevalences of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and whether abused patients had told their gynaecologist about these experiences. We assessed differences between countries with Pearson's chi(2) test. Findings The ranges across the five countries of lifetime prevalence were 38-66% for physical abuse, 19-37% for emotional abuse, and 17-33% for sexual abuse. Not all abused women reported current ill-effects from the abusive experience. Most women (92-98%) had not talked to their gynaecologist about their experiences of abuse at their latest clinic visit. Interpretation Despite prevalences of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse being high in patients visiting gynaecology clinics in the Nordic countries, most victims of abuse are not identified by their gynaecologists. This lack of discussion might increase the risk of abused patients not being treated according to their needs. Gynaecologists should always consider asking their patients about abuse.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available