Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is under-diagnosed globally, particularly in primary care, and if untreated may cause reproductive complications. This paper investigates PID diagnosis by Australian general practitioners (GPs) and barriers to their conducting a pelvic examination. Methods: An online survey investigating Australian GPs’ chlamydia management, including PID diagnosis, was conducted in 2019. From 323 respondents, 85.8% (n = 277) answered multiple-choice questions about PID and 74.6% (n = 241) answered a free-text question about barriers to conducting pelvic examinations. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified factors associated with conducting pelvic examinations. Barriers to performing pelvic examinations were explored using thematic analysis. Results: Most GPs indicated that they routinely ask female patients with a sexually transmissible infection about PID symptoms, including pelvic pain (86.2%), abnormal vaginal discharge (95.3%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (89.5%), and dyspareunia (79.6%). Over half reported routinely conducting speculum (69.0%) and bimanual pelvic (55.3%) examinations for women reporting pelvic pain. Female GPs were more likely to perform speculum [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 4.6; 95%CI: 2.6–8.2] and bimanual pelvic examinations (AOR 3.7; 95%CI: 2.1–6.5). GPs with additional sexual health training were more likely to routinely perform speculum (AOR 2.2; 95%CI: 1.1–4.2) and bimanual pelvic examinations (AOR 2.1; 95%CI: 1.2–3.7). Barriers to pelvic examinations were patient unwillingness and/or refusal, GP gender, patient health-related factors, time pressures, and GP reluctance. Conclusion: Although GPs typically ask about PID symptoms when managing patients with chlamydia, they are not consistently able or willing to perform pelvic examinations to support a diagnosis, potentially reducing capacity to diagnose PID.
Background Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is under-diagnosed globally, particularly in primary care, and if untreated may cause reproductive complications. This paper investigates PID diagnosis by Australian general practitioners (GPs) and barriers to their conducting a pelvic examination. Methods: An online survey investigating Australian GPs’ chlamydia management, including PID diagnosis, was conducted in 2019. From 323 respondents, 85.8% (n = 277) answered multiple-choice questions about PID and 74.6% (n = 241) answered a free-text question about barriers to conducting pelvic examinations. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified factors associated with conducting pelvic examinations. Barriers to performing pelvic examinations were explored using thematic analysis. Results: Most GPs indicated that they routinely ask female patients with a sexually transmissible infection about PID symptoms, including pelvic pain (86.2%), abnormal vaginal discharge (95.3%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (89.5%), and dyspareunia (79.6%). Over half reported routinely conducting speculum (69.0%) and bimanual pelvic (55.3%) examinations for women reporting pelvic pain. Female GPs were more likely to perform speculum [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 4.6; 95%CI: 2.6–8.2] and bimanual pelvic examinations (AOR 3.7; 95%CI: 2.1–6.5). GPs with additional sexual health training were more likely to routinely perform speculum (AOR 2.2; 95%CI: 1.1–4.2) and bimanual pelvic examinations (AOR 2.1; 95%CI: 1.2–3.7). Barriers to pelvic examinations were patient unwillingness and/or refusal, GP gender, patient health-related factors, time pressures, and GP reluctance. Conclusion: Although GPs typically ask about PID symptoms when managing patients with chlamydia, they are not consistently able or willing to perform pelvic examinations to support a diagnosis, potentially reducing capacity to diagnose PID.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.