The Effect of Information About Gynecological Examination on the Anxiety Level of Women Applying to Gynecology Clinics: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND

Crowded hospital outpatient clinics and endless waiting lines that make patients feel overlooked tend to exaggerate patients' anxiety levels. In addition, fear of pain, shyness, religious and traditional thoughts, women's sexual role in society, and previous information and experience also contribute to people's anxiety levels with regard to gynecologic examination.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to analyze the effect of specific information about gynecologic examination on anxiety levels of women applying to gynecology clinics.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

In this randomized prospective study, the women applying for a gynecological examination were randomly allocated into control, intervention 1, and intervention 2 groups. Power analysis indicated that in order to achieve a one-point decrease from the previous anxiety score of 43.85 ± 5.41 at one side alpha 0.05 with a power of 80%, at least 79 women were needed in each group. Four medical school students interviewed 75 women (25 in control, 25 in intervention 1, and 25 in intervention 2). The data were collected using the demographic, social, and economic data form, and the Turkish version of the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI). The women in the intervention 1 and 2 groups were instructed to read a paper that contained brief information about the gynecological examination procedure and the profits obtained from forests, respectively. All participants, including the women in the control group, filled the STAI by themselves. The three groups were compared appropriately.

RESULTS

The demographics pertaining to age, gravidity and parity, miscarriage, induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, offspring number, place of residence, working status, education level and previous experience of gynecological examination did not differ among the groups (P > 0.05). According to the STAI scores, all groups had mild state (control: 40.20 ± 10.53, intervention 1: 42.00 ± 11.98, and intervention 2: 39.53 ± 10.32) and severe continuous (control: 46.78 ± 8.65, Intervention 1: 47.25 ± 9.57, and intervention 2: 46.60 ± 9.72) anxiety levels. However, both state and continuous anxiety scores were not significantly different in all groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Providing brief written information about the gynecological examination procedure and the clinic's working discipline is not sufficient to lower the anxiety of women applying for a gynecological examination.