Cargando…
What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care
BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs’ ex...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Royal College of General Practitioners
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131233/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37068965 http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0363 |
_version_ | 1785031133612736512 |
---|---|
author | Williams, Pauline Murchie, Peter Cruickshank, Maggie E Bond, Christine M Burton, Christopher D |
author_facet | Williams, Pauline Murchie, Peter Cruickshank, Maggie E Bond, Christine M Burton, Christopher D |
author_sort | Williams, Pauline |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs’ experience of PEs in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interview study conducted in one health board in Scotland (mixed urban and rural) with an approximate population of 500 000. METHOD: Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone between March and June 2019. Framework analysis used the COM-B behaviour change model concepts of capability, opportunity, and motivation. RESULTS: Data was compatible with all three domains of the COM-B framework. Capability related to training in and maintenance of skills. These went beyond carrying out the examination to interpreting it reliably. Opportunity related to the clinical environment and the provision of chaperones for intimate examination. Interviewees described a range of motivations towards or against PEs that were unrelated to either capability or opportunity. These all related to providing high-quality care, but this was defined in different ways: ‘doing what is best for the individual’, ‘doctors examine’, and ‘GPs as pragmatists’. CONCLUSION: GPs’ reasons for carrying out, or not carrying out, PEs in women with symptoms potentially indicating cancer are complex. The COM-B framework provides a way of understanding this complexity. Interventions to increase the use of PEs, and critics of its non-use, need to consider these multiple factors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10131233 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Royal College of General Practitioners |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101312332023-04-27 What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care Williams, Pauline Murchie, Peter Cruickshank, Maggie E Bond, Christine M Burton, Christopher D Br J Gen Pract Research BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs’ experience of PEs in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interview study conducted in one health board in Scotland (mixed urban and rural) with an approximate population of 500 000. METHOD: Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone between March and June 2019. Framework analysis used the COM-B behaviour change model concepts of capability, opportunity, and motivation. RESULTS: Data was compatible with all three domains of the COM-B framework. Capability related to training in and maintenance of skills. These went beyond carrying out the examination to interpreting it reliably. Opportunity related to the clinical environment and the provision of chaperones for intimate examination. Interviewees described a range of motivations towards or against PEs that were unrelated to either capability or opportunity. These all related to providing high-quality care, but this was defined in different ways: ‘doing what is best for the individual’, ‘doctors examine’, and ‘GPs as pragmatists’. CONCLUSION: GPs’ reasons for carrying out, or not carrying out, PEs in women with symptoms potentially indicating cancer are complex. The COM-B framework provides a way of understanding this complexity. Interventions to increase the use of PEs, and critics of its non-use, need to consider these multiple factors. Royal College of General Practitioners 2023-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10131233/ /pubmed/37068965 http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0363 Text en © The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ). |
spellingShingle | Research Williams, Pauline Murchie, Peter Cruickshank, Maggie E Bond, Christine M Burton, Christopher D What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care |
title | What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care |
title_full | What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care |
title_fullStr | What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care |
title_full_unstemmed | What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care |
title_short | What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care |
title_sort | what influences gps’ use of pelvic examination? a qualitative investigation in primary care |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131233/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37068965 http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0363 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT williamspauline whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare AT murchiepeter whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare AT cruickshankmaggiee whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare AT bondchristinem whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare AT burtonchristopherd whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare |