Experience of Pelvic Examination and Uptake of Gynecological Care Following Domestic or Sexual Violence: a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pelvic examination, a routine practice for gynecological care, can cause anxiety and be considered traumatic. This study aimed to define the association between domestic or sexual violence and the experience of pelvic examination, as well as the uptake of gynecological care following domestic or sexual violence. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched, up to April 30, 2023. Cohort, cross-sectional, case-control studies and controlled trials assessing perception of pelvic examination or the use of gynecological care for women with a history of violence were selected and analyzed. Each study underwent a descriptive analysis and was assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the RoB2 tool. Twenty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies, including 7,329 women, investigated the experience of pelvic examination following lifetime or childhood sexual violence. Most reported an association between violence and adverse experiences of pelvic examination, such as discomfort, anxiety, distress, and pain perceptions. Ten studies, including 9,248 women, investigated the uptake of gynecological care following domestic or sexual violence and reported mixed results, such as a decreased or an increased uptake, particularly for acute symptoms. Two studies, including 1,304 women, examined both outcomes. The present study highlights the association between violence and adverse experiences of pelvic examination, as well as mixed results on the uptake of gynecological care. It argues for the necessity to screen for violence in consultations, particularly when considering a pelvic examination, to guarantee the utility of pelvic examinations, and to consider the traumatic impact of sexual violence in care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".