Challenges in Providing Gynecological Procedures in Primary Care: A Survey of Canadian Academic Family Physicians.

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) Pub Date : 2025-01-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1089/whr.2024.0098
Parisa Rezaiefar, Douglas Archibald, Monisha Kabir, Susan Humphrey-Murto
{"title":"Challenges in Providing Gynecological Procedures in Primary Care: A Survey of Canadian Academic Family Physicians.","authors":"Parisa Rezaiefar, Douglas Archibald, Monisha Kabir, Susan Humphrey-Murto","doi":"10.1089/whr.2024.0098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Globally, there is a lack of access to health care providers who offer gynecological procedures. Understanding the practice patterns of academic family physicians (AFPs) and whether additional training impacts the provision of care is critical. This study surveys the practice patterns of AFPs regarding gynecological procedures offered, identifies barriers, and explores the impact of additional training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We circulated an anonymous, cross-sectional survey to all 17 family medicine programs across Canada, receiving responses from 71 AFPs. We computed descriptive statistics and bivariate associations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 71 respondents from five universities participated. Most participants (97.2%) performed Papanicolaou (Pap) smears; 67.6% provided intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, and only 54.9% offered endometrial biopsy. Numbers decreased significantly for routine pessary care (29.5%), punch biopsy of the vulva (15.5%), and pessary fitting (5.6%). Eighteen participants (26.9%) had received enhanced skills training with a certificate of added competence (CAC), of which 55.6% were in women's health. CAC holders in women's health provided IUD insertions (100% vs. 67.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.049, V = 0.28) and endometrial biopsies (90.0% vs. 53.1%; <i>p</i> = 0.036, V = 0.28) at higher rates than general AFPs. Frequently cited barriers to offering gynecological procedures included lack of knowledge, procedural skills, and insufficient patient volumes to maintain competence. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 44% of respondents reported reducing or ceasing to provide Pap smears.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Many AFPs in Canada do not provide essential gynecological procedures. This impacts patient access and the training of the next generation of family physicians and thus requires innovative strategies to address the persistent procedural skills educational gap for trainees.</p>","PeriodicalId":75329,"journal":{"name":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","volume":"6 1","pages":"102-112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11839541/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2024.0098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Globally, there is a lack of access to health care providers who offer gynecological procedures. Understanding the practice patterns of academic family physicians (AFPs) and whether additional training impacts the provision of care is critical. This study surveys the practice patterns of AFPs regarding gynecological procedures offered, identifies barriers, and explores the impact of additional training.

Methods: We circulated an anonymous, cross-sectional survey to all 17 family medicine programs across Canada, receiving responses from 71 AFPs. We computed descriptive statistics and bivariate associations.

Results: A total of 71 respondents from five universities participated. Most participants (97.2%) performed Papanicolaou (Pap) smears; 67.6% provided intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, and only 54.9% offered endometrial biopsy. Numbers decreased significantly for routine pessary care (29.5%), punch biopsy of the vulva (15.5%), and pessary fitting (5.6%). Eighteen participants (26.9%) had received enhanced skills training with a certificate of added competence (CAC), of which 55.6% were in women's health. CAC holders in women's health provided IUD insertions (100% vs. 67.3%; p = 0.049, V = 0.28) and endometrial biopsies (90.0% vs. 53.1%; p = 0.036, V = 0.28) at higher rates than general AFPs. Frequently cited barriers to offering gynecological procedures included lack of knowledge, procedural skills, and insufficient patient volumes to maintain competence. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 44% of respondents reported reducing or ceasing to provide Pap smears.

Conclusions: Many AFPs in Canada do not provide essential gynecological procedures. This impacts patient access and the training of the next generation of family physicians and thus requires innovative strategies to address the persistent procedural skills educational gap for trainees.

在初级保健中提供妇科程序的挑战:加拿大学术家庭医生的调查。
目的:在全球范围内,缺乏获得提供妇科手术的卫生保健提供者的机会。了解学术家庭医生(AFPs)的实践模式以及额外的培训是否会影响护理的提供是至关重要的。本研究调查了afp提供的妇科手术的实践模式,识别障碍,并探讨了额外培训的影响。方法:我们在加拿大所有17个家庭医学项目中进行了一项匿名横断面调查,收到了71名家庭医生的回复。我们计算了描述性统计和双变量关联。结果:共有来自5所大学的71名受访者参与了调查。大多数参与者(97.2%)进行了巴氏涂片检查;67.6%的患者提供宫内节育器(IUD)插入,而只有54.9%的患者提供子宫内膜活检。常规子宫护理(29.5%)、外阴穿刺活检(15.5%)和子宫装配(5.6%)的数量明显减少。18名参与者(26.9%)接受了增强技能培训,并获得了增强能力证书(CAC),其中55.6%是妇女保健方面的培训。妇女保健CAC持有人提供宫内节育器插入(100%对67.3%;p = 0.049, V = 0.28)和子宫内膜活检(90.0% vs. 53.1%;p = 0.036, V = 0.28)。提供妇科手术的常见障碍包括缺乏知识、操作技能和维持能力的病人数量不足。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,44%的答复者报告减少或停止提供子宫颈抹片检查。结论:加拿大的许多afp不提供必要的妇科手术。这影响了患者的获取和下一代家庭医生的培训,因此需要创新的策略来解决培训生持续存在的程序技能教育差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信