Utilization of a Mirror During Pelvic Examinations: Does it Improve the Patient's Experience?. Issue 3 (March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tam, Tiffanie; Crisp, Catrina C.; Hill, Austin M.; Aldrich, Emily; Ghodsi, Vivian; Yook, Eunsun; Yeung, Jennifer; Pauls, Rachel N.
• Is Part Of: Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery. Volume 27:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 208
• Page End: 213
• Publication Date: 2021-03
• Subjects: pelvic examination -- office visit -- mirror pelvic examination; Pelvis -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Pelvis -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Genital Diseases, Female -- surgery -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Colonic Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Rectal Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Operative -- methods -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000975
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2151-8378

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: This study was conducted to assess the utility of a mirror in improving pain and vulnerability during a pelvic examination. Methods: In this prospective, institutional review board-approved, 2-cohort trial, all "new" patients presenting to a urogynecology office were offered to have a mirror or no-mirror present during their pelvic examination. Patients completed 100-mm visual analog scales regarding pain, anxiety, knowledge, control, embarrassment, and vulnerability before and after examination. The primary outcome was difference in level of pain and vulnerability between groups. Secondary outcomes included comparisons from baseline to postexamination scores within groups, patient satisfaction, and examination duration. A sample size of 68 participants in each arm was planned. Results: From April 2019 to May 2020, 147 participants were enrolled. Two participants were excluded, 145 were included in the final analysis; 74 in the no-mirror group and 71 in the mirror group. The average age was 55.9 (±13) years, and the groups were overall similar. There was no difference in primary outcomes of pain or vulnerability, but the mirror group showed improved levels of control ( P = 0.006) and knowledge ( P = 0.018) following examination. All participants reported high satisfaction, and those that selected a mirror reported strong preference for future use. Conclusions: Patients who chose to use the mirror did not demonstrate a difference in pain or vulnerability scores; however, they exhibited benefit to their sense of control and knowledge after the pelvic examination. Although the mirror did not benefit all patients, this is a simple option that could improve the examination experience for some. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03785548