Abstract
Objective As paediatric and adolescent gynaecology (PAG) falls within the remit of paediatrics and gynaecology, training in both specialties is underdeveloped. There is a paucity of research investigating trainee knowledge of PAG, while postgraduate paediatric training demonstrates little focus in the field. Compounding this, a finite number of PAG specialists means clinical training is limited. We hypothesize that knowledge deficits exist among paediatric and GP trainees and that this has future implications for increased morbidity in girls.
Design, Setting and Participants A structured questionnaire assessing PAG was distributed to forty paediatric and GP trainees in October 2019 in a tertiary paediatric hospital.
Results 60% (24) incorrectly identified vulvovaginitis as candidal infection. 80% (32) were unable to identify labial adhesions. 62% (25) were unable to define menorrhagia. 100% (9) of GP trainees said they would prescribe the OCP compared with 51% (16) of paediatric trainees. 52% (21) did not consider STI screening when appropriate. 75% (30) believed genital warts invariably warrant referral to child sexual assault clinic. 70% (28) could not identify female genital mutilation. 60% (24) did not consider imperforate hymen as a cause of primary amenorrhoea. 67% (27) misdiagnosed lichen sclerosis.
Conclusions A knowledge deficit among trainees was evident in relation to PAG conditions. Misdiagnosis and delayed treatment could lead to considerable increased morbidity for girls and we postulate that a key intervention which may prove effective in improving trainee competency in PAG lies in the introduction of a structured training curriculum for all clinicians involved in PAG practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Not applicable
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
As this was a study of our own trainee colleagues within our own hospital and no patients or patient data was involved in the study ethical approval was not sought. The study was voluntarily participated in by colleagues and was anonymised. Guidelines used are available publicly. In our experience prior studies testing doctor knowledge have not previously required ethical approval. We are happy to retrospectively seek ethical approval if the editors feel it is essential.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Survey data was collected on hard copies of questionnaires. They are in the care of AR Geoghegan at present (ageogheg1{at}gmail.com). Participants were anonymous. Data was coded on an Excel spreadsheet with no personal participant information. This Excel spreadsheet is no longer available.
