Qualitative and quantitative analysis of women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery

Juliane Bingener, Jeff A Sloan, Karthik Ghosh, Andrea McConico, Andrea Mariani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Prior surveys evaluating women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women's perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women's perceptions of transvaginal procedures. Methods Women seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiarycare center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments. Results The completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82% ≥some college education, and 56% with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59%, for appendectomy to 43%, and for cholecystectomy to 41% of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4%), recovery time (13.9%), scarring (13.7%), pain (6%), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4%). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7%), pain (9%), infection (5.6%), and recovery time (4.9%). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach. Conclusions As in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the "top five" list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)998-1004
Number of pages7
JournalSurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
Volume26
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2012

Fingerprint

Tubal Sterilization
Appendectomy
Cholecystectomy
Pain
Cicatrix
Logistic Models
Education
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Parity
Research Personnel
Demography
Safety
Surveys and Questionnaires
Infection

Keywords

  • Cholecystectomy appendectomy
  • Natural orifice surgery
  • Qualitative methods
  • Transvaginal surgery
  • Tubal ligation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery. / Bingener, Juliane; Sloan, Jeff A; Ghosh, Karthik; McConico, Andrea; Mariani, Andrea.

In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, Vol. 26, No. 4, 04.2012, p. 998-1004.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{376d03b3822347c5a16b57ca815ea9e1,
title = "Qualitative and quantitative analysis of women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery",
abstract = "Background Prior surveys evaluating women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women's perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women's perceptions of transvaginal procedures. Methods Women seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiarycare center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments. Results The completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82{\%} ≥some college education, and 56{\%} with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59{\%}, for appendectomy to 43{\%}, and for cholecystectomy to 41{\%} of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4{\%}), recovery time (13.9{\%}), scarring (13.7{\%}), pain (6{\%}), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4{\%}). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7{\%}), pain (9{\%}), infection (5.6{\%}), and recovery time (4.9{\%}). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach. Conclusions As in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the {"}top five{"} list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.",
keywords = "Cholecystectomy appendectomy, Natural orifice surgery, Qualitative methods, Transvaginal surgery, Tubal ligation",
author = "Juliane Bingener and Sloan, {Jeff A} and Karthik Ghosh and Andrea McConico and Andrea Mariani",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-011-1984-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "998--1004",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Qualitative and quantitative analysis of women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery

AU - Bingener, Juliane

AU - Sloan, Jeff A

AU - Ghosh, Karthik

AU - McConico, Andrea

AU - Mariani, Andrea

PY - 2012/4

Y1 - 2012/4

N2 - Background Prior surveys evaluating women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women's perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women's perceptions of transvaginal procedures. Methods Women seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiarycare center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments. Results The completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82% ≥some college education, and 56% with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59%, for appendectomy to 43%, and for cholecystectomy to 41% of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4%), recovery time (13.9%), scarring (13.7%), pain (6%), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4%). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7%), pain (9%), infection (5.6%), and recovery time (4.9%). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach. Conclusions As in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the "top five" list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.

AB - Background Prior surveys evaluating women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women's perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women's perceptions of transvaginal procedures. Methods Women seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiarycare center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments. Results The completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82% ≥some college education, and 56% with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59%, for appendectomy to 43%, and for cholecystectomy to 41% of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4%), recovery time (13.9%), scarring (13.7%), pain (6%), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4%). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7%), pain (9%), infection (5.6%), and recovery time (4.9%). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach. Conclusions As in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the "top five" list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.

KW - Cholecystectomy appendectomy

KW - Natural orifice surgery

KW - Qualitative methods

KW - Transvaginal surgery

KW - Tubal ligation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863196782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863196782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-011-1984-7

DO - 10.1007/s00464-011-1984-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 22044969

AN - SCOPUS:84863196782

VL - 26

SP - 998

EP - 1004

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 4

ER -