Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Articles

Chaperone Use by Family Physicians During the Collection of a Pap Smear

Pamela Rockwell, Terrence E. Steyer and Mack T. Ruffin
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2003, 1 (4) 218-220; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.69
Pamela Rockwell
DO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Terrence E. Steyer
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mack T. Ruffin IV
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND We wanted to determine whether variations exist in use of a chaperone during the performance of a pelvic examination by family physicians.

METHODS A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 5,000 randomly selected active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

RESULTS There were 3,551 survey responses (71% response rate) and 2,748 useable questionnaires. Most respondents (75.4%) reported routinely using a chaperone in the room during the collection of a Papanicolaou (Pap) smear. Significantly (P < .00001) more male physicians (84.1%) than female physicians (31.4%) reported using a chaperone. Physicians reporting routine use of a chaperone were significantly younger (P = .01) and did fewer Pap smears per month (P < .00001). Regional reporting of chaperone use varied significantly (P < .00001), with 71.6% reporting use in the Northeast, 89.0% in the South, 65.7% in the Midwest, and 72.4% in the West.

CONCLUSION Family physicians vary considerably in the reported use of a chaperone during the collection of a Pap smear. The variation could reflect different regional or local norms, efficiency or resource issues in high-volume clinical settings, or other interpersonal factors. These issues need to be explored in more depth.

  • Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
  • professional practice
  • vaginal smears

INTRODUCTION

Historically, chaperone use during pelvic examinations was first encouraged for the comfort of the patient, and gradually chaperones were advocated for the purpose of legal protection.1 Additional rationales for use of chaperones are convenience and time efficiency, although there are no supporting data. Little consistency and uniformity, however, are found in the use of chaperones during a pelvic examination.2–,7

Relatively few studies have explored the issue of chaperone use based on physician variables. Published data suggest that physician specialty and physician sex might contribute to the variation in chaperone use, but these data are limited to small samples, one geographic location, or one medical society. No existing study has a sample population that is representative of practicing family physicians.

We proposed to test the hypothesis that family physicians’ use of a chaperone during a routine pelvic examination to collect a Papanicolaou (Pap) smear would vary by physician sex but not by age, other physician characteristics, number of Pap tests done, or geographic location of the practice.

To address this hypothesis, we used data previously collected with the primary intent to gather information on Pap smear collection and processing techniques. One aspect of the study queried physicians about their routine use of chaperones during the collection of a Pap smear.

METHODS

Data Collection Instrument

A self-administered questionnaire was developed to gather information on Pap smear collection and processing techniques. The reliability was determined for each item of the questionnaire using kappa statistics for categorical data and correlation coefficients for continuous data. The reliability was excellent, with a kappa statistic range of .75 to .90 and a correlation coefficient range of .83 to .90. The questionnaire was sequenced to follow the steps in collecting a Pap smear to facilitate completion.8 The issue of using chaperones during a Pap smear was a secondary item.

The self-administered questionnaire was mailed with a cover letter that included an introduction of the project, quotes from nationally recognized leaders in family practice supporting the study, and an envelope with return postage. Six waves of mailed contacts at 2-week intervals (2 surveys and 2 reminder cards) were followed by a telephone call to any remaining nonrespondents.

The study sample was 5,000 randomly selected active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). The total population at the time of sampling was 38,095 active members, 33,141 men and 4,950 women.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using STATA Release 6.0 statistical analysis software. Initially, frequencies and summary statistics were calculated on all variables. Next, bivariate analysis was performed using chi-square and t tests, as appropriate, with the outcome of use of a chaperone (yes/no). Variables with significant association in the bivariate analysis with chaperone use (P ≤ .05) were used in logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression models were developed using both forward and backward stepwise regression. Both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were created to determine odds ratios for the independent variables. A Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was performed to ensure the appropriateness of the model.

RESULTS

The responses to the mailed physicians’ survey were 3,551 (71% response rate) with 2,748 (55%) useable questionnaires. The reasons for excluding the 803 responses were that cervical cancer screening was not part of the physician’s clinical practice, 466 (58%); the physician was no longer involved in patient care, 249 (31%); or the physician was no longer alive, 88 (11%). Differences were not found between respondents (3,551) and nonrespondents (1,449) by age (mean age 44.8 years compared with 49.1 years) and sex (82.7% male compared with 85.2% female). Table 1⇓ highlights the demographics of the participants in this survey.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of Family Physicians Reporting the Use of Chaperones During the Collection of a Pap Smear and Logistic Regression Model

Of the 1,449 nonresponders, 800 were reached by telephone. Among these 800 physicians, 384 (48%) did not see women, 240 (30%) did not screen for cervical cancer in their practice, 96 (12%) had moved to another practice location, and 80 (10%) were no longer in clinical practice. No other information was available on the nonresponders for comparison.

Table 1⇑ shows the results of the unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models for predicting use of a chaperone during the collection of a Pap smear. The most predictive variable for the use of a chaperone was physician sex, with men being significantly more likely (odds ratio [OR] = 15.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.2–20.1) than women to use chaperones. The number of Pap smears performed per month was also important, in that those family physicians who performed 20 or more Pap smears per month were significantly less likely to use chaperones (OR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59–0.96). Finally, the geographic location of a practice was significantly associated with the use of a chaperone. Physicians in the South were significantly more likely to use chaperones than those in the Midwest (OR = 6.1; 95% CI, 4.5–8.3).

DISCUSSION

Among a random sample of active members of the AAFP, the hypothesis that male physicians would report use of a chaperone more often than female physicians was confirmed. Other physician characteristics were found to be associated with reported chaperone use, refuting our other hypothesis. Those family physicians who performed fewer than 20 Pap smears per month were significantly more likely to use chaperones than those who performed more than 20. Physicians in the South used chaperones more often than physicians did in the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West. It is interesting that Southern female physicians were as likely to report chaperone use as Midwestern male physicians.

Some limitations to this study can be noted. First, physician behavior was self-reported, which might not be valid. The primary focus of the survey, however, was on Pap smear collection and processing, not the use of chaperones, so the responses might be less biased than had the primary intent of the survey been to target the issue of chaperone use. Second, the study population was 5,000 randomly selected active members of the AAFP. This group might not reflect the practices of all family physicians; AAFP members might be more informed because of required continuing medical education. Third, although the response rate to the survey was 71%, which is quite good, variation in chaperone use might still be significantly different among the nonresponders.

The use of chaperones during gynecologic examinations remains a controversial issue with no formal guidelines or legal mandates. The topic is poorly addressed by the medical literature and by our current medical education system. No consensus is found among state medical and osteopathic boards on the use of a chaperone.9 From the legal perspective, the recommendations are nearly unanimous in strongly supporting the use of chaperones. Many questions related to this issue are unanswered. Does chaperone use decrease malpractice claims? Does chaperone use have an impact on clinical efficiency, as the inverse relationship with the volume of Pap smears performed suggests? What are the regional influences contributing to the geographic variation in reported use of a chaperone? We believe the question with highest priority is, What is the perspective of patients?

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sonya DeMonner for statistical assistance and Kathy Carter for editorial assistance.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: none reported

  • Funding support: The original study was supported by grants from the Research Council of the Department of Family Practice and Community Health at the University of Minnesota, the Bureau of Health Professions HRSA Grant for Faculty Development in Family Medicine, the Minnesota Medical Foundation, the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, the American Cancer Society, and the Research Committee of the Department of Family Practice at the University of Michigan. We would also like to acknowledge the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars program for the support of Dr. Steyer and the support of the National Cancer Institute (K24 CA 80846) for Dr. Ruffin.

  • Received for publication September 26, 2002.
  • Revision received June 17, 2003.
  • Accepted for publication June 19, 2003.
  • © 2003 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Clyman SG. Why do we chaperone the female pelvic exam? Del Med J. 1982;54:105–108.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    Gilchrist V, Gillanders WR, Gemmel DJ. Chaperoning practices of Ohio family physicians. Fam Med. 1992;24:386–389.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. Johnson NR, Philipson EH, Curry SL. Chaperone use by obstetrician/gynecologists. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:423–427.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. Jones RH. The use of chaperones by general practitioners. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1983;33:25–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. Renfroe WO, Replogle WH. Chaperone use in primary care. Fam Med. 1991;23:231–233.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. Sanders JM Jr, DuRant RH, Chastain DO. Pediatricians’ use of chaperones when performing gynecologic examinations on adolescent females. J Adolesc Health Care. 1989;10:110–114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Speelman A, Savage J, Verburgh M. Use of chaperones by general practitioners. BMJ. 1993;307:986–987.
  8. ↵
    Dillman DA. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, NY: Wiley; 1978.
  9. ↵
    Stagno SJ, Forster H, Belinson J. Medical and osteopathic boards’ positions on chaperones during gynecologic examinations. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:352–354.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 1 (4)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 1 (4)
Vol. 1, Issue 4
1 Nov 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • [Annual Indexes, 2003]
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Chaperone Use by Family Physicians During the Collection of a Pap Smear
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 13 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Chaperone Use by Family Physicians During the Collection of a Pap Smear
Pamela Rockwell, Terrence E. Steyer, Mack T. Ruffin
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2003, 1 (4) 218-220; DOI: 10.1370/afm.69

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Chaperone Use by Family Physicians During the Collection of a Pap Smear
Pamela Rockwell, Terrence E. Steyer, Mack T. Ruffin
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2003, 1 (4) 218-220; DOI: 10.1370/afm.69
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The awareness and use of chaperones by patients in an English general practice
  • Three's a crowd
  • Provocative Questions
  • In This Issue: Cervical Cancer Screening
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Facilitators of Transforming Primary Care: A Look Under the Hood at Practice Leadership
  • Medical Home Transformation: A Gradual Process and a Continuum of Attainment
  • Assessment and Measurement of Patient-Centered Medical Home Implementation: The BCBSM Experience
Show more Original Articles

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Prevention
  • Person groups:
    • Women's health
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Professional practice
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Personalized care

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine