4.3 Article

Reduced quality of life among multiple sclerosis patients with sexual disturbance and bladder dysfunction

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 231-235

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/135245850100700404

关键词

multiple sclerosis; sexual disturbance; bladder dysfunction; quality of life; SF-36

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physical disability explains only part of the reduced quality of life found among multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Bladder dysfunction and sexual disturbance are frequent and distressing problems for MS patients. We therefore estimated the relationship between the presence and degree of sexual disturbance/bladder dysfunction and the patients' quality of life as measured by the SF-36 Health Survey. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of all individuals with the onset of MS between 1976 and 1986 in Hordaland County, Norway. The disease duration at examination was 9-19 years; 194 patients (94%) participated. Results: Fifty-three per cent of the patients with low physical disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) less than or equal to 4.0) reported disease-related sexual disturbance and 44% had bladder dysfunction according to the Incapacity Status Scale. The corresponding figures for the patients with a high physical disability (EDSS >4.0) were 86 and 81% respectively. The patients with sexual disturbance had markedly and significantly reduced scores on all eight SF-36 scales, this was after adjustment for disease development measured by the EDSS. The patients without sexual disturbance scored 0.5 s.d. lower than a normal population on the social functioning scale, whereas those with marked sexual disturbance scored 1.5 s.d. lower. Similar results were found for the patients with bladder dysfunction. Conclusion: Bladder and sexual problems are associated with a marked reduction in the quality of life, also among patients with otherwise low disability. This underlines the need for identifying and treating these problems.

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

4.3
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