Patients Prefer Being Offered a Mirror to See Their Cervix and External Genitalia During Well-Exams while Clinician Perceptions May Create Barriers to Offering a Mirror: A Mixed Methods Study in a Primary Care Setting.

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) Pub Date : 2025-05-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1089/whr.2025.0030
Luci Olewinski, Stephanie Hartmann, Savannah McKenzie, Shannon Lewis, Grace Saxon, Robert Eric Heidel, Fatima Ahmed
{"title":"Patients Prefer Being Offered a Mirror to See Their Cervix and External Genitalia During Well-Exams while Clinician Perceptions May Create Barriers to Offering a Mirror: A Mixed Methods Study in a Primary Care Setting.","authors":"Luci Olewinski, Stephanie Hartmann, Savannah McKenzie, Shannon Lewis, Grace Saxon, Robert Eric Heidel, Fatima Ahmed","doi":"10.1089/whr.2025.0030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patient-centered care is a core value of both Family Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynecology. We sought to know if patients prefer being offered a mirror to see their cervix and external genitalia during asymptomatic speculum exams (Mirror Pelvic Exam, MPE). Additionally, we explored clinicians' (medical assistants, residents, and faculty) opinions about offering patients a mirror during exams.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The patient portion was a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey of people presenting for cervical cancer screening at a residency-based Family Medicine Clinic. Patients took a presurvey, were offered a mirror to see their external genitalia and/or their cervix during the exam, and then took a post-survey. The clinician portion was a mixed-methods survey given at the initiation of the study and after the four-month patient survey period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While only half the patients (<i>n</i> = 22) accepted the use of a mirror, the majority preferred being offered and felt offering a mirror should be a routine part of the well-exam. Being offered a mirror did not bother anyone. Free responses further emphasized that patients preferred being offered the MPE. Over half of clinicians (<i>n</i> = 51) felt the MPE was a good idea, but only a third felt it would improve patient satisfaction. Some did not offer the MPE due to thinking patients would not want the option, lack of comfort with the MPE, or concerns about slowing down clinic flow.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients prefer being offered the MPE while clinicians did not have insight into patients' preferences. Our results suggest clinician perceptions about offering the MPE are a barrier to the MPE as a standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":75329,"journal":{"name":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","volume":"6 1","pages":"556-563"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12177316/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.2025.0030","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

Objective: Patient-centered care is a core value of both Family Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynecology. We sought to know if patients prefer being offered a mirror to see their cervix and external genitalia during asymptomatic speculum exams (Mirror Pelvic Exam, MPE). Additionally, we explored clinicians' (medical assistants, residents, and faculty) opinions about offering patients a mirror during exams.

Methods: The patient portion was a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey of people presenting for cervical cancer screening at a residency-based Family Medicine Clinic. Patients took a presurvey, were offered a mirror to see their external genitalia and/or their cervix during the exam, and then took a post-survey. The clinician portion was a mixed-methods survey given at the initiation of the study and after the four-month patient survey period.

Results: While only half the patients (n = 22) accepted the use of a mirror, the majority preferred being offered and felt offering a mirror should be a routine part of the well-exam. Being offered a mirror did not bother anyone. Free responses further emphasized that patients preferred being offered the MPE. Over half of clinicians (n = 51) felt the MPE was a good idea, but only a third felt it would improve patient satisfaction. Some did not offer the MPE due to thinking patients would not want the option, lack of comfort with the MPE, or concerns about slowing down clinic flow.

Conclusion: Patients prefer being offered the MPE while clinicians did not have insight into patients' preferences. Our results suggest clinician perceptions about offering the MPE are a barrier to the MPE as a standard of care.

患者更喜欢在健康检查期间提供镜子来看到他们的子宫颈和外生殖器,而临床医生的看法可能会造成提供镜子的障碍:初级保健环境中的混合方法研究。
目的:以患者为中心的护理是家庭医学和妇产科的核心价值。我们试图了解患者是否更喜欢在无症状的镜腔检查(镜腔检查,MPE)中看到他们的子宫颈和外生殖器。此外,我们还探讨了临床医生(医疗助理、住院医生和教师)对在检查期间为患者提供镜子的意见。方法:患者部分是一项横断面混合方法调查,在以住院医师为基础的家庭医学诊所进行宫颈癌筛查。患者进行了一项调查,在检查期间提供了一面镜子来观察他们的外生殖器和/或子宫颈,然后进行了一项调查。临床医生部分是在研究开始时和四个月患者调查期后进行的混合方法调查。结果:虽然只有一半的患者(n = 22)接受使用镜子,但大多数人更喜欢提供镜子,并认为提供镜子应该是健康检查的常规部分。别人给他一面镜子,谁也不介意。自由应答进一步强调患者更愿意接受MPE治疗。超过一半的临床医生(n = 51)认为MPE是一个好主意,但只有三分之一的人认为它会提高患者的满意度。有些医生没有提供MPE,因为他们认为病人不会想要这个选择,对MPE缺乏舒适感,或者担心会减慢诊所的流量。结论:患者更愿意接受MPE治疗,而临床医生并不了解患者的偏好。我们的研究结果表明,临床医生对提供MPE的看法是MPE作为标准护理的障碍。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信