Shared Decision-Making Framework for Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic, Nonpregnant Patients.


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
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

810-814

Références

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.

Auteurs

Julie Chor (J)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, and the Department of Family Medicine, the University of Chicago, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH