Chaperoning in genitourinary medicine clinics

Miller, R F; Jones, K.; Daniels, D; Förster, Gerhard; Brook, M G

doi:10.1136/sti.79.1.74-a

Sexually Transmitted Infections

2003

DOI: 10.1136/sti.79.1.74-a

|View full text |Cite

Chaperoning in genitourinary medicine clinics

R F Miller¹,

K. Jones²,

D Daniels³

et al.

Abstract: We would like to apologise for an error that occurred in the paper by McGarrigle et al (Sex Transm Infect 2002;78:398-405). In table 2, under the heading "Name and custodian" the following affiliations should have appeared.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2003

2012

Publication Types

Select...

Article5

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent5

Authors

Journals

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 In the genitourinary (GU) medicine setting, many clinics do not have a clear policy regarding chaperones. 5,6 The current policy of the two clinics in this survey is for all female patients examined by a male doctor to have a female chaperone present and to verbally offer other patients a chaperone. There are also posters in the waiting room to explain that chaperones are available .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of chaperones for intimate examinations: the patient perspective based on an anonymous questionnaire

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the study was to identify genitourinary (GU) medicine patients' opinions concerning the offer and provision of chaperones and to audit adherence to clinic policy. An anonymous questionnaire was completed by patients after their examination in two GU medicine clinics in central and north London. In total, 750 patients were given questionnaires, of which 627 (84%) were completed and returned. Less than half (45%) reported that they had been offered a chaperone. There was an association between patient gender/orientation and examiner gender/role for both offer and acceptance. Those likely to be offered (75%, 18/24) and accept (93%, 14/15) were women being examined by a man. Those least likely to be offered (27%, 32/120) or accept (3%, 1/31) were men who have sex with men. The offer of a chaperone was significantly greater for younger patients and those from Asian or black ethnic groups. Acceptance was highest among Asian patients. Most patients (88%, 530/602) did not want a chaperone for future examinations. Our conclusion was that most patients do not want a chaperone in the GU medicine clinic. Those who do would prefer for one to be offered, rather than for it to be routine. This supports the recommendation that all patients should be offered a chaperone for intimate examinations.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of chaperones for intimate examinations: the patient perspective based on an anonymous questionnaire

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Australian sexual health practitioners' use of chaperones for genital examinations: a survey of attitudes and practice

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Chaperoning in GUM clinics

Cohen

2004

Sexually Transmitted Infections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent report 1 of the death of rectal and throat sampling in women was an exaggeration. I write lest anyone think there has been a conversion from long held, 2 3 and recently reiterated 4 5 views. Bradbeer and Mears questioned the utility of taking rectal and throat swabs in female gonorrhoea contacts by reference to a poster presentation, of which I was a co-author, at the IUSTI Asia-Pacific Conference 2002. 6 In this poster the conclusion stated that: ''At this clinic rectal microscopy and culture, and throat culture in women did not aid diagnosis. There appears to be a general reduction in the usefulness of these tests since the last major assessment.'' The authors offered one possible explanation (of several) for this but did not conclude (as implied by Bradbeer and Mears' citation) that these investigations could be abandoned. While it is vital that we have sensitive and specific methods for diagnosing STIs, including gonorrhoea, we have always, even during the postwar mode of gonococcal incidence, the mid-1970s, spent most of our time excluding gonorrhoea. We need to be able to tell, with confidence, those who ask us, that they have not got gonorrhoea. Further, we need to be able to reassure those treated that the infection has been eliminated. One conclusion from our study, which we hope to publish after peer review, may well be that the testing protocols adhered to in 2001 were inadequate to exclude gonorrhoea. Their adequacy would not improve were we to abandon samples from rectum and oropharynx. For the record, the correct citation (their reference 11) and order of authors is as given here. 6 We did not suggest limiting swab sites to the urethra and cervix; the number of rectal investigations was not (as implied) 338, but 115 by culture and 94 by microscopy; throat swabs numbered 119. Finally, we did not see ''338 cases of female contacts of GC.'' The number of female contacts of gonorrhoea seen and reported in our series was 101.

show abstract

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.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Chaperoning in genitourinary medicine clinics

Abstract: We would like to apologise for an error that occurred in the paper by McGarrigle et al (Sex Transm Infect 2002;78:398-405). In table 2, under the heading "Name and custodian" the following affiliations should have appeared.

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

The use of chaperones for intimate examinations: the patient perspective based on an anonymous questionnaire

The use of chaperones for intimate examinations: the patient perspective based on an anonymous questionnaire

Australian sexual health practitioners' use of chaperones for genital examinations: a survey of attitudes and practice

Chaperoning in GUM clinics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About