Shared Decision-Making Framework for Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic, Nonpregnant Patients.
Adult
Aged
Asymptomatic Diseases
Decision Making, Shared
Female
Gynecological Examination
/ methods
Gynecology
/ organization & administration
Humans
Mass Screening
/ organization & administration
Middle Aged
Needs Assessment
Patient Participation
Reproductive Health
Sexual Health
Societies, Medical
United States
Journal
Obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1873-233X
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
15
3
2019
medline:
23
1
2020
entrez:
15
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Controversy exists regarding whether to perform pelvic examinations for asymptomatic, nonpregnant patients. However, several professional organizations support the notion that health care providers should no longer recommend that asymptomatic patients receive a yearly pelvic examination. At minimum, health care providers must respect patients' autonomy in decision making around this examination and initiate a joint discussion about whether to proceed with a pelvic examination. Shared decision making is a model used in other aspects of medicine that can aid such discussions. This model recognizes two experts in these clinical encounters-the health care provider is the expert regarding medical information and the patient is the expert regarding their values, preferences, and lived experiences. When shared decision making is used, not only is each expert valued for their knowledge, but the power differential shifts to a shared power model. This commentary aims to educate about shared decision making, explain why shared decision making is appropriate to use when discussing whether to perform a pelvic examination, and provide a framework for using shared decision making in discussing whether to proceed with a pelvic examination with asymptomatic, nonpregnant patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30870283
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003166
pii: 00006250-201904000-00030
doi:
Types de publication
Editorial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
810-814Références
National Center for Health Statistics. National ambulatory medical care survey: 2015 state and national summary tables. Hyattsville (MD): NCHS; 2017.
Bloomfield HE, Olson A, Greer N, Cantor A, MacDonald R, Rutks I, et al. Screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, average-risk adult women: an evidence report for a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:46–53.
American Academy of Family Physicians. Screening pelvic exam. Clinical preventive service recommendation. Available at: https://www.aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all/screening-pelvic-exam.html. Retrieved November 1, 2018.
Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Pelvic examinations. SGO position statement. Available at: https://www.sgo.org/newsroom/position-statements-2/pelvic-examinations/. Retrieved November 1, 2018.
US Preventive Services Task Force; Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Barry MJ, Davidson KW, et al. Screening for gynecologic conditions with pelvic examination: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2017;317:947–53.
The utility of and indications for routine pelvic examination. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 754. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:e174–80.
Henderson JT, Harper CC, Gutin S, Saraiya M, Chapman J, Sawaya GF. Routine bimanual pelvic examinations: practices and beliefs of US obstetrician-gynecologists. AJOG 2013;208:109E1–7.
Sawaya GF, Smith-McCune KK, Gregorich SE, Moghadassi M, Kupperman M. Effect of professional society recommendations on women’s desire for a routine pelvic examination. AJOG 2017;217:3388.E1–7.
Siegler M. Searching for moral certainty in medicine: a proposal for a new model of the doctor-patient encounter. Bull NY Acad Med 1981;57:56–69.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Science Med 1999;49:651–61.
Dehlendorf C, Grumbach K, Schmittdiel JA, Steinauer J. Shared decision making in contraceptive counseling. Contraception 2017;95:452–5.
Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH, De Haes JCJM. Shared decision making: concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ Couns 2015;98:1172–9.