“We Are Not Truly Friendly Faces”: Primary Health Care Doctors’ Reflections on Sexual History Taking in North West Province

Abstract

Introduction Doctors experience barriers in consultations that compromise engaging with patients on sensitive topics and impede history taking for sexual dysfunction. Aim The aim of the study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of sexual history taking that primary care doctors experience during consultations involving patients with chronic illnesses. Methods This qualitative study formed part of a grounded theory study and represents individual interviews with 20 primary care doctors working in the rural North West Province, South Africa. The doctors were interviewed on the barriers and facilitators of sexual history taking they experienced during 151 recorded consultations with patients at risk of sexual dysfunction. Interviews were transcribed and line-by-line verbatim coding was done. A thematic analysis was performed using MaxQDA 2018 software for qualitative research. The study complied with COREQ requirements. Outcome Doctors’ reflections on sexual history taking. Results Three themes identifying barriers to sexual history taking emerged, namely personal and health system limitations, presuppositions and assumptions, and socio-cultural barriers. The fourth theme that emerged was the patient-doctor relationship as a facilitator of sexual history taking. Doctors experienced personal limitations such as a lack of training and not thinking about taking a history for sexual dysfunction. Consultations were compromised by too many competing priorities and socio-cultural differences between doctors and patients. The doctors believed that the patients had to take the responsibility to initiate the discussion on sexual challenges. Competencies mentioned that could improve the patient-doctor relationship to promote sexual history taking, include rapport building and cultural sensitivity. Clinical implications Doctors do not provide holistic patient care at primary health care settings if they do not screen for sexual dysfunction. Strength and limitations The strength in this study is that recall bias was limited as interviews took place in a real-world setting, which was the context of clinical care. As this is a qualitative study, results will apply to primary care in rural settings in South Africa. Conclusion Doctors need a socio-cognitive paradigm shift in terms of knowledge and awareness of sexual dysfunction in patients with chronic illness.

Understanding sexual distress related to sexual function (SDRSF): A preliminary framework based on a qualitative study with clinical sexologists

“…Indeed, several studies explored clinicians' opinions to inform clinical practice (e.g., Smith & Gillon, 2021 ). Research with experts in the realm of sexuality has created preliminary frameworks for research (e.g., Pascoal et al, 2021 ) or clinical practice ( Pretorius et al, 2022 ). In line with this research that explored experts' opinions, our study aims to provide space for clinical sexologists to share their approaches to SDRSF in clinical practice.…”