Cited by 87Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareInnovations in Medical EducationAnatomy and Medical Technology

Patient involvement in teaching and assessing intimate examination skills: a systematic review

Open access
Jha, Vikram, Setna, Zeryab, Al‐Hity, Aws, Quinton, Naomi D, Roberts, Trudie E·2010·Medical Education

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: There are recognised difficulties in teaching and assessing intimate examination skills that relate to the sensitive nature of the various examinations and the anxiety faced by novice learners. This systematic review provides a summary of the evidence for the involvement of real patients (RPs) and simulated patients (SPs) in the training of health care professionals in intimate examination skills. METHODS: For the review, 'intimate examinations' included pelvic, breast, testicular and rectal examinations. Major databases were searched from the start of the database to December 2008. The synthesis of findings is integrated by narrative structured to address the main research questions, which sought to establish: the objectives of programmes involving RPs and SPs as teachers of intimate examination skills; reasons why SPs have been involved in this training; the evidence for the effectiveness of such training programmes; the evidence for measures of anxiety in students learning how to perform intimate examinations; how well issues of sexuality are addressed in the literature; any reported negative effects of involvement in teaching on the patients, and suggestions for practical strategies for involving patients in the teaching of intimate examination skills. RESULTS: A total of 65 articles were included in the review. Involving patients in teaching intimate examination skills offers advantages over traditional methods of teaching. Objective evidence for the effectiveness of this method is demonstrated through improved clinical performance, reduced anxiety and positive evaluation of programmes. Practical strategies for implementing such programmes are also reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of a short-term positive impact of patient involvement in the teaching and assessment of intimate examination skills; however, evidence of longer-term impact is still limited. The influences of sexuality and anxiety related to such examinations are explored to some extent, but the psychological impact on learners and patients is not well addressed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03608.x

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Coldicott Y, Pope C, Roberts C. The ethics of intimate examinations -teaching tomorrow's doctors. BMJ 2003;326:97-101.
  2. Kretzschmar RM. Evolution of the gynaecology teach- ing associate: an education specialist. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978;131:367-72.
  3. Plauche WC, Baugniet-Nebrija W. Students' and phy- sicians' evaluations of a gynaecologic teaching associate programme. J Med Educ 1985;60:870-5.
  4. Hamburger S, Guthrie D, Smith PG, Shaffer K. Teaching the pelvic examination in an internal medicine residency programme. West J Med 1981;134 (6):547-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jha, V., Setna, Z., Al‐Hity, A., Quinton, N. D., & Roberts, T. E.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Jha, Vikram
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-03-19
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
347-357
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2073801818
Cited by
87
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Anatomy and Medical Technology
Keywords
patient involvement in medical education, standardized patients, clinical skills assessment, student anxiety, pelvic examination, breast examination, testicular examination, rectal examination, clinical performance
MeSH terms
Breast, Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Education, Medical, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Participation, Pelvis, Physical Examination, Rectum, Testis, Problem-Based Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review