Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37968071›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2024

Primary care clinicians' perspectives on interacting with patients with gynaecological conditions: a systematic review.

Simon Briscoe, Jo Thompson Coon, G J Melendez-Torres, Rebecca Abbott, Liz Shaw, Michael Nunns, Ruth Garside

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Simon BriscoeExeter PRP Evidence Review Facility, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK s.briscoe@exeter.ac.uk.
Jo Thompson CoonExeter PRP Evidence Review Facility, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.
G J Melendez-TorresExeter PRP Evidence Review Facility, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.
Rebecca AbbottNIHR Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.
Liz ShawExeter PRP Evidence Review Facility, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.
Michael NunnsExeter PRP Evidence Review Facility, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.
Ruth GarsideExeter PRP Evidence Review Facility, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have found that women with gynaecological conditions and symptoms do not feel listened to by primary care clinicians (PCCs). Less understood is whether PCCs perceive that there are challenges around listening to and interacting with this patient group.

aimTo understand PCCs' perspectives on the challenges of listening to and interacting with women patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms. DESIGN &

settingSystematic review of English-language studies.

methodWe searched ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Embase, HMIC (Healthcare Management Information Consortium), and MEDLINE from inception to July 2023. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches of included studies. Identified records were screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Quality appraisal used the Wallace checklist. 'Best-fit' framework synthesis was used to synthesise findings around themes that explored the challenges of patient-clinician interaction.

resultsWe identified 25 relevant articles. Perceived challenges associated with listening to and interacting with patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms were identified at four 'levels': individual clinician level factors; structural and organisational factors; community and external factors; and factors related to gynaecological conditions. Interpretive analysis identified specific challenges relating to sociocultural factors affecting the consultation experience; the need for further education, training, or guidance for clinicians; factors affecting referral decisions; and factors related to service structure and organisation.

conclusionPCCs acknowledge that empathy, respect, and attentive listening are important when interacting with women patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms. However, these ideals are impeded by several factors.

Indexed as

gynaecological conditionsprimary health carequalitative researchsystematic reviewwomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID37968071
PMCPMC11169973

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.