4.6 Article

A longitudinal study of sexual functioning in women referred for colposcopy: a 2-year follow up

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01503.x

Keywords

anxiety; cervical smear; CIN; colposcopy; HPV; LEEP; sexual functioning; STAI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To elucidate psychosexual problems in women referred for colposcopy after an abnormal cervical smear and a 6-month and 2-year follow up. Design Prospective study. Setting Department of Gynaecology, Malmo University Hospital, Sweden. Population One hundred consecutive women referred for colposcopy for the first time subsequent to receiving notification of an abnormal cervical smear. Methods The women completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, a psychosexual questionnaire and had one psychosocial interview prior to colposcopy at all three visits. Main outcome measures Depending upon the result of the cervical biopsy, women had either a loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) or not. Psychosexual variables, anxiety measures, and psychosocial variables were used to estimate sexual functioning at the beginning of the study and at follow up. Differences in sexual functioning between LEEP and non-LEEP groups were estimated. Results 'Spontaneous interest in sex', 'frequency of intercourse', and 'sexual arousal' were reported to be statistically significant lower at 6 months compared with the first visit, and at 2 years, 'spontaneous interest in sex' and 'frequency of intercourse' still remained low. There was no difference in sexual functioning between the LEEP and non-LEEP groups at follow up. Conclusions Two years after referral for colposcopy, women still had an effect on sexual functioning, that is, lesser 'spontaneous interest' and decreased 'frequency of intercourse'. We found no support for a relationship between treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by LEEP and deterioration in sexual functioning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available