FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2561543212> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2561543212 endingPage "86.e6" @default.
• W2561543212 startingPage "86.e1" @default.
• W2561543212 abstract "BackgroundThe American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that a pelvic examination be offered to asymptomatic women after an informed discussion with their provider. Although the adverse health outcomes that the examination averts were not delineated, the organization stated that it helps establish open communication between patients and physicians. Recent surveys have focused on obstetrician-gynecologists’ attitudes and beliefs about the examination, but the perspectives of women have not been well-characterized.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to better understand women’s beliefs about the purpose and value of routine pelvic examinations.Study DesignWe completed structured interviews with 262 women who were 21–65 years old who agreed to participate in a 50-minute interview about cervical cancer screening. Recruitment took place in outpatient women’s clinics at a public hospital and an academic medical center in San Francisco, CA. Women were shown an illustration of a bimanual pelvic examination and asked a series of closed-ended questions: if they knew why it was performed, if it reassured them of their health, and if they believed it helped establish open communication with their provider. Women were asked an open-ended question about their perception of the examination’s purpose. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify demographic predictors of responses.ResultsApproximately one-half of the participants (56%) stated that they knew the examination’s purpose. The most frequently cited reason was assurance of normalcy. Most of participants (82%) believed that the examination reassured them of their health. Approximately two-thirds of the participants (62%) believed that the examination helps establish open communication with their provider. In multivariate analyses, older age (≥45 years) independently predicted a higher likelihood of a belief that they knew the examination’s purpose (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5–5.6) and a belief that it facilitates open communication (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–3.9). Non-white race also was associated with a belief that the examination helps facilitate open communication between patients and providers (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–3.1).ConclusionApproximately one-half of the women who participated in our study reported not knowing the purpose of the pelvic examination, yet most of them believed it to be of some value, especially reassurance of health. To achieve shared, informed decision-making, clinicians will need to communicate better to their patients the examination’s purpose. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that a pelvic examination be offered to asymptomatic women after an informed discussion with their provider. Although the adverse health outcomes that the examination averts were not delineated, the organization stated that it helps establish open communication between patients and physicians. Recent surveys have focused on obstetrician-gynecologists’ attitudes and beliefs about the examination, but the perspectives of women have not been well-characterized. The purpose of this study was to better understand women’s beliefs about the purpose and value of routine pelvic examinations. We completed structured interviews with 262 women who were 21–65 years old who agreed to participate in a 50-minute interview about cervical cancer screening. Recruitment took place in outpatient women’s clinics at a public hospital and an academic medical center in San Francisco, CA. Women were shown an illustration of a bimanual pelvic examination and asked a series of closed-ended questions: if they knew why it was performed, if it reassured them of their health, and if they believed it helped establish open communication with their provider. Women were asked an open-ended question about their perception of the examination’s purpose. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify demographic predictors of responses. Approximately one-half of the participants (56%) stated that they knew the examination’s purpose. The most frequently cited reason was assurance of normalcy. Most of participants (82%) believed that the examination reassured them of their health. Approximately two-thirds of the participants (62%) believed that the examination helps establish open communication with their provider. In multivariate analyses, older age (≥45 years) independently predicted a higher likelihood of a belief that they knew the examination’s purpose (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5–5.6) and a belief that it facilitates open communication (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–3.9). Non-white race also was associated with a belief that the examination helps facilitate open communication between patients and providers (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–3.1). Approximately one-half of the women who participated in our study reported not knowing the purpose of the pelvic examination, yet most of them believed it to be of some value, especially reassurance of health. To achieve shared, informed decision-making, clinicians will need to communicate better to their patients the examination’s purpose." @default.
• W2561543212 created "2017-01-06" @default.
• W2561543212 creator A5012050757 @default.
• W2561543212 creator A5022120458 @default.
• W2561543212 creator A5048457646 @default.
• W2561543212 creator A5086537473 @default.
• W2561543212 date "2017-07-01" @default.
• W2561543212 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2561543212 title "Women’s beliefs about the purpose and value of routine pelvic examinations" @default.
• W2561543212 cites W1448491226 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2028079583 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2063645088 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2070307187 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2087037924 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2104735330 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2128641362 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2131500364 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2132640627 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W2406322563 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W4237018011 @default.
• W2561543212 cites W4252213304 @default.
• W2561543212 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.031" @default.
• W2561543212 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6420304" @default.
• W2561543212 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28040449" @default.
• W2561543212 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2561543212 type Work @default.
• W2561543212 sameAs 2561543212 @default.
• W2561543212 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W2561543212 countsByYear W25615432122017 @default.
• W2561543212 countsByYear W25615432122018 @default.
• W2561543212 countsByYear W25615432122019 @default.
• W2561543212 countsByYear W25615432122020 @default.
• W2561543212 countsByYear W25615432122021 @default.
• W2561543212 countsByYear W25615432122022 @default.
• W2561543212 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2561543212 hasAuthorship W2561543212A5012050757 @default.
• W2561543212 hasAuthorship W2561543212A5022120458 @default.
• W2561543212 hasAuthorship W2561543212A5048457646 @default.
• W2561543212 hasAuthorship W2561543212A5086537473 @default.
• W2561543212 hasBestOaLocation W25615432121 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C10885799 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C151956035 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C2781369713 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C10885799 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C126322002 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C151956035 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C2779234561 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C2781369713 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C29456083 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C512399662 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C54355233 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C71924100 @default.
• W2561543212 hasConceptScore W2561543212C86803240 @default.
• W2561543212 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2561543212 hasLocation W25615432121 @default.
• W2561543212 hasLocation W25615432122 @default.
• W2561543212 hasLocation W25615432123 @default.
• W2561543212 hasLocation W25615432124 @default.
• W2561543212 hasOpenAccess W2561543212 @default.
• W2561543212 hasPrimaryLocation W25615432121 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W1603705127 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W1997890059 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W2030331520 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W2063645088 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W2106045529 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W2389709268 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W2489449084 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W3162645065 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W3214034395 @default.
• W2561543212 hasRelatedWork W4301480976 @default.
• W2561543212 hasVolume "217" @default.
• W2561543212 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2561543212 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2561543212 magId "2561543212" @default.
• W2561543212 workType "article" @default.