Understanding patient experiences during gynaecological procedures: a qualitative exploratory study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202588
Deepti Divya Gopisetty, India Rogers-Shepp, Elisa Padron, Megha Shankar, Kate A Shaw
{"title":"Understanding patient experiences during gynaecological procedures: a qualitative exploratory study.","authors":"Deepti Divya Gopisetty, India Rogers-Shepp, Elisa Padron, Megha Shankar, Kate A Shaw","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain with gynaecological clinic-based procedures is common and undertreated. Prior research has focused on interventions for reducing pain and anxiety with analgesics, yet there remain gaps in understanding the myriad of facilitators and barriers to a person's positive experience. We aimed to start to address these gaps by exploring factors that influence a person's experience during gynaecological procedures beyond quantitative measures of pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative thematic analysis approach was used for this exploratory study. Through convenience sampling, we recruited 15 participants with gynaecological procedural experience with intrauterine device (IUD) insertions, surgical abortions, colposcopies and/or endometrial biopsies. We conducted in-depth, semi-structured 1:1 interviews that explored participants' experience of the procedure. We then used a mixed inductive and deductive approach for development of a codebook and thematic analysis based on the Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity (PCFRHE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four themes fundamental to understanding how patients process procedural experiences were identified: (1) Balancing preparation and anxiety, (2) Variable rapport with clinicians, (3) Self-advocacy and autonomy and (4) Clinician responsiveness to pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Person-centred care in an inclusive, trauma-responsive environment is essential for improving gynaecological procedural experience. Ensuring patient access to pre- and post-visit information and offering multiple options to increase comfort are tangible actions clinicians can take to improve patient experience. This study underscores the importance of person-centred care in gynaecological procedures, emphasising better preprocedural education and support.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202588","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pain with gynaecological clinic-based procedures is common and undertreated. Prior research has focused on interventions for reducing pain and anxiety with analgesics, yet there remain gaps in understanding the myriad of facilitators and barriers to a person's positive experience. We aimed to start to address these gaps by exploring factors that influence a person's experience during gynaecological procedures beyond quantitative measures of pain.

Methods: A qualitative thematic analysis approach was used for this exploratory study. Through convenience sampling, we recruited 15 participants with gynaecological procedural experience with intrauterine device (IUD) insertions, surgical abortions, colposcopies and/or endometrial biopsies. We conducted in-depth, semi-structured 1:1 interviews that explored participants' experience of the procedure. We then used a mixed inductive and deductive approach for development of a codebook and thematic analysis based on the Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity (PCFRHE).

Results: Four themes fundamental to understanding how patients process procedural experiences were identified: (1) Balancing preparation and anxiety, (2) Variable rapport with clinicians, (3) Self-advocacy and autonomy and (4) Clinician responsiveness to pain.

Conclusions: Person-centred care in an inclusive, trauma-responsive environment is essential for improving gynaecological procedural experience. Ensuring patient access to pre- and post-visit information and offering multiple options to increase comfort are tangible actions clinicians can take to improve patient experience. This study underscores the importance of person-centred care in gynaecological procedures, emphasising better preprocedural education and support.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
期刊最新文献
Understanding patient experiences during gynaecological procedures: a qualitative exploratory study. Understanding women from ethnic minorities' perspectives about contraception in the UK: a qualitative study using a participatory action research approach with community research link workers. Reusable menstrual hygiene products may lead to underdiagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomised trial. Lifestyle risk reduction engagement during interconception: a qualitative descriptive study of women's preferences. Response to the letter: 'Sexual and reproductive health clinical consultations: preconception care' by Chingara et al.
×
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:481959085
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