Women's preferences regarding the use of chaperones during proctological examinations conducted by male physicians: a randomised clinical trial.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY International Journal of Colorectal Disease Pub Date : 2025-01-02 DOI:10.1007/s00384-024-04796-4
Daniel C Damin, Paulo C Contu, Ricardo Francalacci Savaris, Bruna Biazi
{"title":"Women's preferences regarding the use of chaperones during proctological examinations conducted by male physicians: a randomised clinical trial.","authors":"Daniel C Damin, Paulo C Contu, Ricardo Francalacci Savaris, Bruna Biazi","doi":"10.1007/s00384-024-04796-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The presence of chaperones during intimate physical examinations is a matter of ongoing debate. While most guidelines recommend the use of chaperones in all cases, there are no clinical trials specifically investigating intimate exams performed on women by male physicians. We aimed to evaluate female patients' perceptions regarding the presence or absence of chaperones during proctological examinations conducted by male physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomised clinical trial, patients were assigned, unaware that they were participating in a study, to either Group 1 (without a chaperone during their proctological exam) or Group 2 (with a chaperone). After the appointment, they completed a questionnaire regarding the examination they had just undergone. The study was conducted at two hospitals in Southern Brazil.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-five patients were included in each group. The mean (SD) comfort score was 8.3 (2.9) with a chaperone and 8.8 (2.5) without a chaperone (P = 0.25). When asked if they would want the exam performed the same way in the future, 72.6% in Group 1 answered 'yes', compared to 58.9% in Group 2 (P = 0.046). In Group 2, 48.4% of patients did not feel more protected by the chaperone, while none of the patients in Group 1 felt less protected without one.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Forgoing chaperones during proctological examinations of women, when the physician is male, is well accepted by most patients. Preferences regarding chaperones are complex, demanding a selective approach. The use of chaperones should remain a recommendation, not a requirement, to accommodate individual needs while maintaining the doctor-patient relationship.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03615586.</p>","PeriodicalId":13789,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Colorectal Disease","volume":"40 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11695391/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Colorectal Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04796-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The presence of chaperones during intimate physical examinations is a matter of ongoing debate. While most guidelines recommend the use of chaperones in all cases, there are no clinical trials specifically investigating intimate exams performed on women by male physicians. We aimed to evaluate female patients' perceptions regarding the presence or absence of chaperones during proctological examinations conducted by male physicians.

Methods: In this randomised clinical trial, patients were assigned, unaware that they were participating in a study, to either Group 1 (without a chaperone during their proctological exam) or Group 2 (with a chaperone). After the appointment, they completed a questionnaire regarding the examination they had just undergone. The study was conducted at two hospitals in Southern Brazil.

Results: Ninety-five patients were included in each group. The mean (SD) comfort score was 8.3 (2.9) with a chaperone and 8.8 (2.5) without a chaperone (P = 0.25). When asked if they would want the exam performed the same way in the future, 72.6% in Group 1 answered 'yes', compared to 58.9% in Group 2 (P = 0.046). In Group 2, 48.4% of patients did not feel more protected by the chaperone, while none of the patients in Group 1 felt less protected without one.

Conclusions: Forgoing chaperones during proctological examinations of women, when the physician is male, is well accepted by most patients. Preferences regarding chaperones are complex, demanding a selective approach. The use of chaperones should remain a recommendation, not a requirement, to accommodate individual needs while maintaining the doctor-patient relationship.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03615586.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在男性医生进行的直肠检查中,女性对伴侣使用的偏好:一项随机临床试验。
目的:在亲密的身体检查中是否有伴侣是一个持续争论的问题。虽然大多数指南建议在所有情况下都使用伴侣,但没有临床试验专门调查男性医生对女性进行的亲密检查。我们的目的是评估女性患者对男性医生进行直肠检查时是否有伴侣的看法。方法:在这项随机临床试验中,患者被分配到第一组(在他们的直肠检查期间没有伴侣)或第二组(有伴侣),他们不知道自己正在参与一项研究。预约后,他们填写了一份关于他们刚刚接受的检查的问卷。这项研究是在巴西南部的两家医院进行的。结果:每组纳入95例患者。有伴侣陪伴时的平均(SD)舒适评分为8.3(2.9),无伴侣陪伴时的平均(SD)舒适评分为8.8 (2.5)(P = 0.25)。当被问及他们是否希望将来的考试以同样的方式进行时,第一组的72.6%的人回答“是”,而第二组的58.9% (P = 0.046)。在第2组中,48.4%的患者没有感觉到有伴侣的保护,而第1组中没有患者感到没有伴侣的保护。结论:在女性直肠检查中,当医生为男性时,大多数患者都能接受放弃伴侣。对伴侣的偏好是复杂的,需要有选择性的方法。在维持医患关系的同时,陪伴者的使用应该是一种建议,而不是要求,以适应个人需求。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov号码:NCT03615586。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.60%
发文量
206
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Colorectal Disease, Clinical and Molecular Gastroenterology and Surgery aims to publish novel and state-of-the-art papers which deal with the physiology and pathophysiology of diseases involving the entire gastrointestinal tract. In addition to original research articles, the following categories will be included: reviews (usually commissioned but may also be submitted), case reports, letters to the editor, and protocols on clinical studies. The journal offers its readers an interdisciplinary forum for clinical science and molecular research related to gastrointestinal disease.
期刊最新文献
The subtype identification of colorectal cancer and construction of the risk model based on cholesterol synthesis-related genes to predict prognosis and guide immunotherapy. Preoperative chemotherapy for colon cancer and short-term outcomes-a nationwide cohort study. Transverse blowhole colostomy versus Hartmann's for urgent management of large bowel obstruction secondary to diverticular stricture. Exploring perceptual disparities: A study on the level of understanding of colorectal cancer care among patients and healthcare professionals. Multidimensional impact analysis of interactive video health intervention on quality of life and clinical rehabilitation indicators in patients with early postoperative bowel obstruction: a randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1