IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i13-14p1857-1865.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cervical screening and the aftermath of childhood sexual abuse: are clinical staff trained to recognise and manage the effect this has on their patients?

Author

Listed:
  • Judith Walker
  • Helen T Allan

Abstract

Aims and objectives To evaluate the training needs and awareness of childhood sexual abuse amongst clinical staff taking cervical screening samples in one inner city primary care trust. Background Studies exploring sexual abuse and nonparticipation in cervical screening have demonstrated that women can experience re‐traumatisation if care during examinations is insensitive to their particular needs. Design This was a mixed methods, service evaluation in three phases. Methods A literature review, a questionnaire to cervical screening staff in an inner city primary care trust and a focus group of four staff drawn from questionnaire respondents to explore themes raised in the questionnaire data. Results Data analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data showed that clinical staff underestimated the frequency of childhood sexual abuse although they were aware of the difficulties and reluctance some women experience undergoing gynaecological examinations. When women did disclose childhood sexual abuse or when staff suspected a history of childhood sexual abuse, staff reported feeling unsure of how they should proceed. There was no support or clinical supervision, and unmet training needs were identified. Conclusions Nurses expressed anxiety around the potential of the screening test to cause more harm than good and at their inability to provide more help than listening. Staff wanted support and further training after completing their cervical screening training course to assist in their provision of sensitive care to patients who have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Relevance to clinical practice Whilst our results cannot be generalised to a wider population, they may be meaningful for the community of cervical screening takers. We argue that screening staff require further training and professional support (clinical supervision) to increase their confidence when providing safe and sensitive practice for childhood sexual abuse survivors. If staff feel more confident and competent when responding to disclosure of childhood sexual abuse in screening situations, women who have experienced childhood sexual abuse might participate in the screening programme more readily.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith Walker & Helen T Allan, 2014. "Cervical screening and the aftermath of childhood sexual abuse: are clinical staff trained to recognise and manage the effect this has on their patients?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(13-14), pages 1857-1865, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:13-14:p:1857-1865
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12390
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12390
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12390?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caroline Bradbury‐Jones & Maria T Clark & Jayne Parry & Julie Taylor, 2017. "Development of a practice framework for improving nurses’ responses to intimate partner violence," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(15-16), pages 2495-2502, August.
    2. Elizabeth A. Reeves & Janice C. Humphreys, 2018. "Describing the healthcare experiences and strategies of women survivors of violence," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 1170-1182, March.
    3. Helen T Allan, 2017. "Editorial: The anxiety of caring and the devaluing of nursing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3-4), pages 299-301, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:13-14:p:1857-1865. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.