Let’s talk about sex: exploring factors influencing the discussion of sexual health among chronically Ill patients in general practice

"No doctor ever asked me…so I thought it wasn't a valid concern": endometriosis patients' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to sexual health communication in general practice

BACKGROUND

Sexual health communication between general practitioners (GPs) and individuals with chronic diseases is well documented as an important component of sexual well-being. However, a notable gap exists in understanding factors that contribute to sexual health communication in the endometriosis context. Endometriosis-related research has focused on the assessment of sexual functioning and its role in influencing health-related quality of life, with a limited understanding of the management of sexual well-being in primary healthcare settings.

AIM

To explore how individuals with endometriosis perceive their experiences of sexual health communication with GPs to understand the barriers and facilitators of this communication in general practice.

METHODS

This study formed part of a larger online quantitative survey measuring psychological and sexual well-being in individuals with endometriosis. In total 141 participants provided responses via open-ended unlimited free-text questions focused on their experiences of sexual health communication with GPs, including their perspectives on barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

Four overarching themes regarding barriers to sexual health communication were identified through thematic template analysis: (1) systemic factors; (2) practitioner factors; (3) patient factors; and (4) interpersonal factors. Facilitators mirrored strategies to address these barriers. Additionally, participants offered recommendations for developing resources to improve sexual health communication.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Despite patients' interest, sexual health concerns in endometriosis are commonly overlooked in general practice due to various barriers, which individuals suggest could be addressed through comprehensive GP education and practical aids including communication tools.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Although the sample is large for a qualitative study, the potential selection bias-stemming from participants' high levels of sexual dysfunction and motivation to discuss sexual health with a GP-may limit the diversity of perspectives. GP perspectives were not evaluated, precluding any assessment of the accuracy of individuals' perceptions of practitioner factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with endometriosis encounter various systematic, practitioner, personal, and interpersonal factors that hinder or facilitate sexual health communication in general practice. Future research should prioritize strategies to improve sexual health communication for both GPs and patients.

The knowledge of and educational interest in sexual medicine among Finnish medical and midwifery students: A web-based study

INTRODUCTION

Many elements of life can affect sexual health; thus, healthcare professionals require good knowledge of sexual medicine to encounter patients with these issues. We aimed to study final-year medical and midwifery students' self-reported knowledge of factors associated with sexuality and their knowledge of how to evaluate and treat/counsel patients with sexual problems. In addition, educational interests regarding sexual medicine were assessed.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, a web-based questionnaire was distributed to final-year medical (n=233) and midwifery (n=131) students graduating between December 2018 and May 2019 in Finland.

RESULTS

Both student groups self-reported insufficient knowledge of how to consider sexuality in mentally ill patients, how to encounter victims of domestic violence/sexual abuse, and how multiculturalism affects sexuality. In addition, compared to the midwifery students, the medical students were more likely to self-report insufficient knowledge of the basics of sexual pleasure and treating the lack of it (p<0.001), including how to treat sexual problems due to relationship problems (p<0.001) or chronic diseases (p=0.015). Although several educational areas of interest arose, both student groups had two mutual most desirable educational interests: 1) reasons for dyspareunia and its treatment, n=117/233 (50.2%) for medical students, and n=60/131 (45.8%) for midwifery students; and 2) lack of sexual desire and its treatment, n=100/233 (42.9%) for medical students, and n=55/131 (42.0%) for midwifery students.

CONCLUSIONS

In both student groups, the self-reported knowledge of sexual medicine was insufficient. Thus, more education on sexual medicine should be included in the curricula of medical and midwifery education.

Enhancing sexual health in primary care: Guidance for practitioners

Sexual health is an integral aspect of overall health and well-being and is fundamental to the sustainable development of societies worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines sexual health as 'a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to sexuality'. However, addressing sexual health has been afforded low priority in primary healthcare systems. Primary care practitioners (PCPs), who play a crucial role in providing comprehensive care to communities, receive little training on screening and managing individuals with sexual health problems. The scope of services ranges from education, prevention and screening, to management of sexual health matters. Patients with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), such as stroke, cancer, heart disease and diabetes, are at increased risk for sexual dysfunction, possibly because of common pathogenetic mechanisms, such as inflammation. This is of considerable importance in the sub-Saharan African context where there is a rapidly increasing prevalence of NCDs, as well as a high burden of HIV. Strategies to improve the quality of sexual health services in primary care include creating a safe and non-judgemental practice environment for history-taking among gender-diverse populations, utilising effective screening tools aligned with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for sexual dysfunctions. In particular, the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM -5) diagnostic and treatment algorithm can empower primary care providers to effectively address sexual dysfunctions among patients and improve the quality of care provided to communities regarding sexual and reproductive health.

First insights into the current practice, knowledge, and attitudes of community pharmacists regarding sexual adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional survey

Introduction

Sexual function can be negatively influenced by adverse drug reactions (ADRs) potentially caused by &gt;300 drugs. These sexual ADRs (sADRs) can lead to low adherence and decreased quality of life. Physicians are known to barely discuss sexual function. Pharmacists also have an important role in informing and advising patients on ADRs, but it is unknown how community pharmacists deal with sADRs.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current practice, attitudes, and knowledge of community pharmacists about informing, detecting, and discussing sADRs.

Methods

An online survey with 31 questions was sent to all 1932 pharmacy members of the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association. The survey was modified from previous surveys that questioned different medical disciplines on their practice, attitudes, and knowledge of sexual function related to their fields. Questions were added on pharmacists’ practice concerning ADRs in general.

Results

A total of 97 (5%) pharmacists responded. During first dispenses of drugs, 64 (66%) informed patients on a selection of common ADRs. Almost all (n = 93, 97%) discussed diarrhea or constipation in at least half of the related occasions, whereas 26 to 31 (27%-33%) discussed sADRs. The sADRs for high-risk drugs were more often named at first than at second dispenses (n = 61 [71%] vs n = 28 [32%]). Pharmacy technicians were generally considered not to discuss sADRs (n = 73, 76%; never or in less than half of the occasions). Lack of privacy (n = 54, 57%) and language barriers (n = 45, 47%) were the most acknowledged barriers to discuss sADRs. Moreover, 46% (n = 45) considered their knowledge insufficient to discuss sADRs. Responsibility for informing, advising, and detecting sADRs was most often attributed to pharmacy technicians (n = 59, 62%), pharmacists (n = 46, 48%), and patients (n = 75, 80%), respectively.

Conclusion

This study shows that one-third of pharmacists and two-thirds of pharmacy technicians barely talked about sADRs during first dispenses for high-risk drugs. The low response rate suggests that mostly interested pharmacists responded, thus likely overestimating the sADR discussion rate. To provide patients with unique opportunities to discuss sADRs in community pharmacies, more attention is needed for raising awareness about the topic among pharmacists and for barriers such as the presence of other clients and limited knowledge about sADRs.