Predictors for Low Frequencies of Patient-Physician Conversations Concerning Sexual Health at an Austrian University Hospital

Women's sexual health improvement: sexual quality of life and pelvic floor muscle assessment in asymptomatic women

Introduction

Problems related to the quality of sexual life in gynecological practice are usually neglected. This study aimed to highlight the significance of this area of concern and evaluate the usefulness of tools, such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and pelvic floor examination, to improve women's sexual wellbeing and to identify predictors of poor quality of sexual life during the well-woman annual visit.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was designed to examine 300 healthy women to determine whether the sexual quality of life (SQOL) questionnaire (on electronic devices) and pelvic floor muscle assessment (the vulva, anus, muscles, and periurethral (VAMP) protocol) of asymptomatic women during the annual bimanual examination (BME) help differentiate patients who would benefit from discussing sexual problems with a gynecologist. Dyspareunia was an exclusion criterion.

Results

The majority of subjects experienced high sexual wellbeing (82.0% with SQOL score of ≥84), with a mean of 85.7 points. SQOL scores were lower for psychiatric disorders or symptoms (37.0% of subjects), although they did not correlate with age, BMI, parity, contraception use, history of vulvovaginal symptoms, neurosurgical/orthopedic problems, and rectal, bowel, or bladder symptoms. Patients with dyspareunia (16.0% of participants, although they denied it during the face-to-face consultation) had a 3.6 times higher prevalence of low or moderate quality of sexual life. The VAMP protocol score was low in asymptomatic women, 33.0% met positive criteria (VAMP+, NRS ≥3) for pelvic floor dysfunction (overactivity), although at borderline levels. VAMP+ was positively correlated with chronic pain and genitourinary symptoms, but neither with dyspareunia nor incontinence, and was unrelated to the SQOL score (p = 0.151).

Conclusion

Women's sexual health is a global health priority. Finding a way to start a discussion with an asymptomatic patient is crucial to increasing patients' interest in disclosing a sexual health problem to be resolved. PROs or simple questions about sexual wellbeing direct the discussion mainly toward the at-risk group for sexual deterioration: those with mental health problems and women with dyspareunia. Dyspareunia is considered a predictor of decreased quality of sexual life, a major sexual disorder that should not be overlooked. Gynecological consultation should resolve concerns, identify the problem, and refer for professional sexual care if still needed.

Perceived influence of medical school sexual health education on specialty selection in young urologists specializing in sexual dysfunction

BACKGROUND

To determine effects of sexual health curriculum (SHC) in medical school and mentorship on future specialty/subspecialty selection, we sought to evaluate the experiences of urology trainees and practicing urologists.

METHODS

Residents, fellows, and practicing urologists completed a 15-question survey regarding their exposure to a SHC during medical school, topics covered, and the influence of mentors in their career choice. Summary statistics were used to identify trends based on survey responses.

RESULTS

Ninety-four respondents, primarily post-graduate training year 4 and 5 (46%), completed the survey. Approximately 50% recalled a dedicated SHC during medical school with 46% planning to pursue fellowship training in sexual medicine/reconstruction. Topics commonly covered included reproductive anatomy/physiology and sexual history-taking, while respondents rarely recalled topics such as sexual aids/toys and pornography. Only 25% felt their SHC provided an adequate fund of knowledge to address sexual health concerns in patients, and only 14% felt that exposure to a SHC influenced their decision to pursue urology. Individuals intending to pursue fellowship were more likely to have an attending mentor, a mentor with expertise in sexual dysfunction, and considered their mentor as important or very important in their decision to subspecialize (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Most urology trainees do not have strong exposure to a SHC during medical school and cite mentorship as a more important role in the decision to pursue subspecialty training. These data support the need for a standardized formal SHC and continued exposure to sexual health experts during training to ensure continued interest in sexual medicine/reconstruction fellowship.

Discussing sexual health among Flemish patients with Parkinson’s disease

PURPOSE

Parkinson's disease (PD) can lead to sexual dysfunction. Yet, studies have shown that neurologists do not often discuss possible sexual health consequences with their patients. Thus, in this study, we investigated the communication on sexual health between healthcare workers and PD patients in Flanders, Belgium.

METHODS

Through an online survey, PD patients were contacted. Sexual dysfunction was measured with the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX), stage of PD with the Hoehn and Yahr scale, and self-made questions on the communication between healthcare workers and PD patients.

RESULTS

In total, 100 PD patients responded, of which 23% had possible sexual dysfunction. Of these respondents, 60% had never received any information about possible sexual health consequences. More than half (58%) of the patients felt their neurologist should provide information on possible sexual health consequences, though only 14% had ever received information from their neurologist. Male respondents expressed a greater need for information than female respondents (p = .049), although no difference between both groups in receiving information was found (p = .294). In addition, low to middle educated people generally received more information than higher educated people (p = .018).. The more severe the disease is, as measured by the Hoehn and Yahr scale, the more information a patient receives (p = .012). The most frequently mentioned barriers in discussing sexual health are a lack of initiative by the neurologist (41%) and awkwardness to discuss sexuality (41%).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that PD patients expect information from neurologists on possible sexual health consequences, but seldom receive information. More attention should be given to training neurologists in discussing sexual health. Table 1 Characteristics of the sample (N = 100) N % Gender  Male 59 59  Female 41 41 Education level  Lower 4 4  Middle 42 42  Higher 54 54 Relationship status  No partner 10 10  Partner 90 90 Stage of Parkinson (Hoehn & Yahr scale)  Stage 0 3 3  Stage 1 36 36  Stage 1.5 12 12  Stage 2 9 9  Stage 2.5 6 6  Stage 3 21 21  Stage 4 9 9  Stage 5 4 4 Time since diagnosis  Less than 1 years ago 10 10  1-2 years 13 13  2-5 years 32 32  5-10 years 29 29  Longer than 20 years 13 13  10-15 years 2 2  15-20 years 1 1 Received information on sexual health consequences from…  Treating neurologist 14 14  GP 9 9  Geriater 0 0  Nurses 2 2  Psychotherapist 3 3  Sexuologist 1 1  Kinesitherapist 2 2  Other 4 4 Who do you think should provide you information on sexual health consequences  Treating neurologist 58 58  GP 43 43  Geriater 3 3  Nurses 6 6  Psychotherapist 23 23  Sexuologist 17 17  Kinesitherapist 3 3  Other 2 2 How would you like to receive information on possible sexual health consequences?  Brochure 38 38  Online (e.g. website) 38 38  Posters in waiting room 3 3  Personal conversation with healthcare worker 51 51  Other 1 1 From what moment do you think possible sexual health consequences of Parkinson's disease should be discussed?  From the moment of diagnosis 52 52  From moment patient indicates he/she experiences problems 33 33  From moment that the neurologist feels it should be discussed 9 9  Should not be discussed 6 6 Need for information on possible sexual health consequences  No need 31 31  A little need 19 19  Some need 21 21  Need 24 24  A lot of need 5 5 How often has healthcare personnel given you information on sexual health consequences  Never 60 60  Seldom 25 25  Sometimes 12 12  Regularly 3 3  At every consultation 0 0 ASEX  No possible sexual dysfunction 77 77  Possible Sexual dysfunction (score equal to or higher than 19) 23 23 How important are sexual activities for you?  Not important 20 20  Slightly important 33 33  Somewhat important 22 22  Important 18 18  Very important 7 7 I avoid sexual contact because of my disease  Agree completely 8 8  Agree 16 16  Agree somewhat 30 30  Disagree 28 28  Completely disagree 18 18 I feel unsatisfied with my sex life due to my disease  Agree completely 16 16  Agree 22 22  Agree somewhat 32 32  Disagree 20 20  Completely disagree 10 10 Mean Standard deviation Age 66.97 8.88 ASEX 16.02 4.53 Table 2 Associations of ASEX, need for information, receiving information ASEX p Need for information p Receiving information p Gender  Male 16.08 0.948 55.31 0.049 48.69 0.294  Female 16.11 44.13 43.38 Education level  Low-middle 15.83 0.068 53.26 0.356 53.41 0.018  High 16.20 48.06 41.49 Need for information and receiving information scores are mean ranks due to non-parametric tests ASEX scores are means Table 3 Correlations between variables ASEX Age Need for information Receiving information Hoehn and Yahr Importance of sex life Avoiding sex Unsatisfied with sex life ASEX -  - 0.04 0.27* 0.07  - 0.09  - 0.12  - 0.10  - 0.23* Age -  - 0.20 0.10 0.41***  - 0.28**  - 0.16 0.08 Need for information - 0.14  - 0.11 0.38***  - 0.13  - 0.46*** Receiving information - 0.22*  - 0.03  - 0.08  - 0.08 Hoehn and Yahr -  - 0.17  - 0.32**  - 0.17 Importance of sex life - 0.24*  - 0.07 Avoiding sex - 0.48*** Unsatisfied with sex life - ^*p < .05 ^**p < .01 ^***p < .001 Table 4 Regression analyses B (S.E.) Exp(B) P Pseudo R² Nagelkerke Pseudo R² Cox & Snell Need for information 0.013 0.19 0.14  Gender  - 1.23 (0.48) 0.29 0.010  Education level  - 0.62 (0.43) 0.54 0.149  Hoehn and Yahr 0.01 (0.11) 1.01 0.925  ASEX 0.10 (0.06) 1.11 0.060 Receiving information 0.047 0.14 0.11  Gender  - 0.53 (0.45) 0.59 0.232  Education level  - 0.61 (0.41) 0.54 0.137  Hoehn and Yahr 0.29 (0.14) 1.33 0.012  ASEX 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 0.788 Table 5 Barriers to discuss sexual health % (that agree with statements) I do not feel comfortable to discuss sexuality with my neurologist 33 I wait until the neurologist begins discussing it 41 My neurologist is either too young or too old 11 My neurologist is of the other gender 26 Reasons that have to do with my faith or attitude towards sexuality 12 I do not have the feeling there is a solution for these problems (with sexual health) 31 My Parkinson related symptoms overshadow my possible sexual health problems 39 It feels awkward to discuss sexual acts like masturbation or discuss buying of sexual aiding tools 41 My family/partner/friends are present during consultation 37 Reasons that have to do with my sexual orientation 11.

Sexual dysfunction as a challenge in treated breast cancer: in-depth analysis and risk assessment to improve individual outcomes

The increasing number of breast cancer survivors has led to a greater emphasis on issues related to quality of life (QoL). Up to 75% of women treated for breast cancer (BC) report sexual disorders. However, most oncologists are not trained to recognize which patients are at high-risk of developing sexual disorders. Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is common in patients with BC; we found that patients without FSD prior to BC treatment are at risk of developing FSD after treatment. Treatment of early BC relies on the combination of chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy. All these treatments have side effects or sequelae identified as high-risk factors for the development of FSD. The choice of less toxic treatments in each modality could reduce the risk of FSD in some cases, without affecting the risk of recurrence or effectiveness. A comprehensive approach of BC must consider FSD as a determinant factor of QoL in survivors.