Barriers to implementation of a pelvic examination among family doctors in primary care clinics

ABSTRACT

Objective: although the pelvic examination of female patients should be an integral part of the physical examination in family medicine there are many barriers to the conduct of this intimate examination by family doctors. the objective: an assessment of the attitudes and barriers reported by family doctors on conducting a pelvic examination.

Methods: An anonymous, self-administered questionnaire.

Results: Two hundred thirty doctors participated in the study, of who 157 were males (68.9%). The mean age was 42.2 ± 9.6 years. 179 family doctors (77.8%) thought that the pelvic examination should be an important part of their work as a family doctor, 100 (43.9%) said that they had conducted a pelvic examination in the past, but the majority (85.2%) had not done a pelvic examination over the previous year. Senior doctors did more pelvic examinations than younger doctors (P = 0.007). Graduates of Israeli medical schools were more likely than those who graduated elsewhere to state that family doctors should do pelvic examinations (P = 0.032). Graduates of non-Israeli medical schools cited less experience (P = 0.002) and less motivation (P = 0.006) as reasons for not doing pelvic examinations.

Conclusions: Although most family doctors believe that pelvic examinations are an important part of their work, only a small percentage actually do a pelvic examination. Among the reasons for not doing the examination are lack of knowledge, lack of experience, and work burden.

KEYWORDS:

• Primary care
• pelvic examination
• family physician
• physical examination
• obstetrics and gynecology

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

None.