4.4 Article

Comprehensive Self-Management Reduces the Negative Impact of Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms on Sexual Functioning

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 1636-1646

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2047-1

关键词

Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale; Irritable bowel syndrome; Sexual dysfunction; Women

资金

  1. NINR, NIH [RO1 NR004142, P30 NR04001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) report sexual dysfunction. Comprehensive self-management (CSM) intervention has been shown to reduce gastrointestinal, psychological, and somatic symptoms in IBS women. Whether this intervention also reduces sexual dysfunction is not known. We sought to compare demographic and clinical factors in IBS women with and without sexual dysfunction as defined by the Arizona sexual experiences scale (ASEX) and to test the effects of CSM treatment on sexual dysfunction scores and on the sexual relations subscale of an IBS quality of life (IBSQOL) scale which measures the effect of IBS on sexual QOL. IBS (Rome II) women enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of CSM treatment were characterized as having sexual dysfunction (N = 89) or not (N = 86) at baseline based on ASEX criteria. Baseline characteristics and symptoms were compared between the two groups. Post-intervention changes were compared between the CSM and the usual care arms of the randomized trial. Women meeting ASEX criteria for sexual dysfunction were older, had higher lifetime depression and antidepressant use, more primary care/MD visits, fewer mental healthcare visits, and greater sleep disturbance than those without sexual dysfunction. No significant group differences in gastrointestinal or somatic symptoms were observed. Compared with usual care treatment, CSM increased sexual QOL scores and had a weaker effect on ASEX scores. Severity of IBS symptoms at baseline did not differ between IBS women with or without sexual dysfunction. The CSM intervention can reduce the effect of IBS on sexual QOL.

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