DOI 10.3109/13814788.2015.1122752
Dealing with patients facing a history of sexual abuse: A cross-sectional survey among Dutch general practitioners.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Sexual abuse (SA) is a common problem. As the primary confidant, the general practitioner (GP) has a valuable role in identifying a history of abuse, specifically with regard to the commonly performed pelvic examination for cervical cancer screening.
OBJECTIVES
This study focused on GPs' practice patterns, knowledge, training need and barriers concerning asking patients about SA. Furthermore, it was investigated who performs the cervical smear within the practice and if SA is taken into consideration.
METHODS
The authors constructed a 31-item questionnaire, which was sent to a group of 730 Dutch GPs in September 2012.
RESULTS
The response rate was 49.3%. Half of the 357 responding GPs asked their patients about SA sometimes. The majority (76.2%) stated they had some knowledge of SA. The most important barriers for not asking were 'no angle or motive for asking' (81.6%), 'presence of third parties' (73.1%), and 'not enough training' (54.1%). In most practices (84.3%), the nurse practitioner (NP) was assigned to perform the cervical smears, of which 34.8% presumably never ask about SA in advance. Additional training was in need according to 68.6%. GPs desired a clinical practice guideline regarding the counselling of SA (83.5%).
CONCLUSION
This study showed SA is an under-evaluated problem in general practice, yet GPs are motivated to improve knowledge and counselling skills. NPs perform most of the cervical smears, but the majority never or rarely asked about SA in advance. Educational training and a clinical guideline regarding SA would be appreciated and hence recommended.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.