Australasian sonographers' knowledge, awareness, and attitudes towards the international evidence‐based guidelines for the diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndrome

Abstract

AbstractIntroduction/PurposeMany guidelines have been utilised to diagnose polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). The most recent are the International Evidence Based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome 2018 (2018 IEBG). This study aimed to assess the awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of Australasian sonographers' regarding these guidelines.MethodsAn online cross‐sectional survey was disseminated to sonographers. Qualitative and quantitative questions were asked around awareness, knowledge, and attitudes towards the 2018 IEBG. Statistical and thematic analyses of the results were performed.ResultsNinety responses were included in the final analysis. Fifty‐two percent (52.2%) of participants were aware of the 2018 IEBG but only 31.1% used it in their workplaces. Fifty‐eight percent (57.9%) of participants correctly identified the sonographic features that suggest PCOS, and 3.5% correctly identified all minimum recommended inclusions for reporting a gynaecological ultrasound for PCOS. Prior to being supplied the 2018 IEBG, 15.8% of participants correctly answered clinical scenario‐based knowledge questions, which increased to 29.4% correctly after being supplied the guideline; however, this difference was not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant associations between demographics and knowledge of the 2018 IEBG.DiscussionSeveral areas of confusion surrounding wording and interpretation of the 2018 IEBG were highlighted. Consideration should be given to barriers of implementation and strategies to overcome these.ConclusionMore education surrounding the sonographic diagnosis of PCOS and the 2018 IEBG is needed. Scanning protocols used amongst sonographers varied, suggesting that inconsistency in sonographic diagnosis may exist. Future reviews of the 2018 IEBG should focus on reducing ambiguity in wording, which may be responsible for some of the varied interpretation of these guidelines.