A. Hornbach, Thomas E. Nichols, Tara Samsel, Rong Shi, Kimberly Kenton, Sarah Collins
{"title":"Preference for In-Person Chaperone During Pelvic Exam Is Associated With Social Determinants of Health","authors":"A. Hornbach, Thomas E. Nichols, Tara Samsel, Rong Shi, Kimberly Kenton, Sarah Collins","doi":"10.1097/aog.0000000000005851.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Women’s healthcare requires awareness of how social determinants of health (SDH) impact patient safety and quality of care. Because of the effects of institutional racism and past discrimination, race is an important SDH in gynecology. In parallel with increased recognition of the importance of SDH, attention to measures of patient safety during clinical exams has heightened. While ACOG has long recognized the importance of providing an in-person chaperone during pelvic examinations for patients who prefer to have one, CMS only recently made provisions to cover the expense of an in-person chaperone. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the desire for a chaperone during pelvic examination is associated with SDH in a large, transregional, and diverse university-based urogynecology practice. METHODS: After institutional leadership recognized the importance of offering patients in-person chaperones for pelvic examinations, our multisite, academic urogynecology practice modified its electronic intake questionnaire, accessed through the health system-wide electronic medical record. All patients were queried using the following item regarding preference for a chaperone during their pelvic examinations: “When you come into the office for an in-person visit and undergo a pelvic examination, would you prefer to have an extra person, or chaperone, present in the room?” This retrospective review of new patients to the practice from May 23 to July 17, 2024, evaluates the medical and demographic factors associated with an answer of “yes” to this question. Descriptive statistics are presented. Categorical data were compared using chi-square and Fisher exact tests as appropriate. All variables that were significant in univariate analysis were entered into a backwards logistic regression model. p<.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 401 new patients to the practice during the study period, 390 (97%) patients completed the intake question about chaperone preference. Their ages were (mean±SD) 58±16.6 years old with PFDI-20 scores of 82±52.2. The population self-identified as White (74%), Black (20%), other race (6%); 7.5% identified as Hispanic or Latino. See Table 1 for additional medical and demographic information. 74/390, 19.1%, indicated that they preferred to have a chaperone present during their pelvic examination. On univariate analysis, 14.6% of White patients compared to 27.4% of Black patients and 36.8% of other races (p=.007) preferred a chaperone. Similarly, non-Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to prefer a chaperone than Hispanic/Latino patients (40% vs 16.2%, p=.014). More patients seeing a male than female physician (34.7% vs 16.7%, p=.005), and more patients with government insurance than private insurance (25.5% vs 14.6%, p=.009) desired a chaperone. On multivariable logistic regression, Black race (p=.028), Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (p=.017), and male physician gender (p=.004) remained independently associated with preference for a chaperone during pelvic exam. CONCLUSIONS: Women who identify as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino are more likely to prefer a chaperone during pelvic examinations than White, non-Hispanic women. As we identify resources to ensure patient safety with respect to SDH, it is essential to provide resources for in-person chaperones if desired by patients. More data is needed to drive efforts to promote equitable patient experiences in diverse clinical practices.","PeriodicalId":37602,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynecology Science","volume":"145 5S","pages":"34S-35S"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and Gynecology Science","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000005851.51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Women’s healthcare requires awareness of how social determinants of health (SDH) impact patient safety and quality of care. Because of the effects of institutional racism and past discrimination, race is an important SDH in gynecology. In parallel with increased recognition of the importance of SDH, attention to measures of patient safety during clinical exams has heightened. While ACOG has long recognized the importance of providing an in-person chaperone during pelvic examinations for patients who prefer to have one, CMS only recently made provisions to cover the expense of an in-person chaperone. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the desire for a chaperone during pelvic examination is associated with SDH in a large, transregional, and diverse university-based urogynecology practice. METHODS: After institutional leadership recognized the importance of offering patients in-person chaperones for pelvic examinations, our multisite, academic urogynecology practice modified its electronic intake questionnaire, accessed through the health system-wide electronic medical record. All patients were queried using the following item regarding preference for a chaperone during their pelvic examinations: “When you come into the office for an in-person visit and undergo a pelvic examination, would you prefer to have an extra person, or chaperone, present in the room?” This retrospective review of new patients to the practice from May 23 to July 17, 2024, evaluates the medical and demographic factors associated with an answer of “yes” to this question. Descriptive statistics are presented. Categorical data were compared using chi-square and Fisher exact tests as appropriate. All variables that were significant in univariate analysis were entered into a backwards logistic regression model. p<.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 401 new patients to the practice during the study period, 390 (97%) patients completed the intake question about chaperone preference. Their ages were (mean±SD) 58±16.6 years old with PFDI-20 scores of 82±52.2. The population self-identified as White (74%), Black (20%), other race (6%); 7.5% identified as Hispanic or Latino. See Table 1 for additional medical and demographic information. 74/390, 19.1%, indicated that they preferred to have a chaperone present during their pelvic examination. On univariate analysis, 14.6% of White patients compared to 27.4% of Black patients and 36.8% of other races (p=.007) preferred a chaperone. Similarly, non-Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to prefer a chaperone than Hispanic/Latino patients (40% vs 16.2%, p=.014). More patients seeing a male than female physician (34.7% vs 16.7%, p=.005), and more patients with government insurance than private insurance (25.5% vs 14.6%, p=.009) desired a chaperone. On multivariable logistic regression, Black race (p=.028), Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (p=.017), and male physician gender (p=.004) remained independently associated with preference for a chaperone during pelvic exam. CONCLUSIONS: Women who identify as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino are more likely to prefer a chaperone during pelvic examinations than White, non-Hispanic women. As we identify resources to ensure patient safety with respect to SDH, it is essential to provide resources for in-person chaperones if desired by patients. More data is needed to drive efforts to promote equitable patient experiences in diverse clinical practices.
期刊介绍:
Obstetrics & Gynecology Science (NLM title: Obstet Gynecol Sci) is an international peer-review journal that published basic, translational, clinical research, and clinical practice guideline to promote women’s health and prevent obstetric and gynecologic disorders. The journal has an international editorial board and is published in English on the 15th day of every other month. Submitted manuscripts should not contain previously published material and should not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. The journal has been publishing articles since 1958. The aim of the journal is to publish original articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, letters to the editor, and video articles that have the potential to change the practices in women''s health care. The journal’s main focus is the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetric and gynecologic disorders. Because the life expectancy of Korean and Asian women is increasing, the journal''s editors are particularly interested in the health of elderly women in these population groups. The journal also publishes articles about reproductive biology, stem cell research, and artificial intelligence research for women; additionally, it provides insights into the physiology and mechanisms of obstetric and gynecologic diseases.