4.4 Article

A Pilot Study Assessing Aspects of Sexual Function Predicted to Be Important After Treatment for Prostate Cancer in Gay Men: An Underserved Domain Highlighted

期刊

LGBT HEALTH
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 271-276

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lgbt.2018.0245

关键词

gay men; health-related quality of life; prostate cancer; sexual function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose:Existing questionnaires assessing sexual function after prostate cancer (PCa) were developed in predominantly heterosexual male cohorts and may measure function incompletely in gay men. We sought to determine if there are sexual function domains relevant to gay men that are not captured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) sexual function assessment. Methods:Fifty-three gay men with PCa responded to an online survey regarding the applicability of the sexual function domain in the validated EPIC questionnaire. They were then queried about whether the prostate is a source of sexual pleasure and the importance of measuring sexual satisfaction as it relates to receptive anal intercourse. Results:A majority of gay men with PCa found the EPIC sexual function tool to be applicable when measuring erectile function (76.5%). Of the men queried, 64.2% felt that the prostate is a source of sexual pleasure and 52.8% felt it important to measure sexual satisfaction associated with receptive anal intercourse. A larger proportion of gay men who engaged in receptive anal intercourse, compared with those who did not engage in receptive anal intercourse, felt that the prostate is a source of sexual pleasure (100% vs. 57.1%), and thought it important to measure sexual satisfaction as it relates to receptive anal intercourse after PCa treatment (90.0% vs. 45.2%). Conclusions:Our findings highlight the need to create a validated questionnaire to measure sexual satisfaction from receptive anal intercourse to help care for men engaging in receptive anal intercourse after PCa treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据