Female sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: Results of a survey among Dutch urologists and patients
Neurourology and Urodynamics , Volume 36 - Issue 1 p. 116- 120
Aims: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of female sexual dysfunction (FSD) in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in one of the leading MS centers in the Netherlands. Furthermore, we evaluated the practice patterns of members of the Dutch Urological Association (DUA) with respect to FSD. Methods: A self-administered Web-based questionnaire for physicians was mailed to all 467 members of the DUA. The questions covered different topics in female sexuality. For the patient survey the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) was used. Results: The response rate of the physicians survey was 42% (n=194). Sixty-one percent of the responders reported to ask their female patients about their sexual function. Thirty-nine percent of the physicians did not ask their patients about sexuality. The majority indicated that they lacked knowledge on FSD or found discussing sexuality not relevant for their practice. The response rate of the patient survey was 28% (n=85). According to the FSFI questionnaire 32% of the sexually active MS patients experienced FSD. Women with FSD scored low on all subdomains of the FSFI questionnaire. In particular, desire, arousal, lubrication, and the ability to achieve orgasm were affected. Conclusions: The prevalence of FSD in MS patients in our center is about 32%. Overall, many members of the DUA do not screen for sexual dysfunction in female patients because of lack of knowledge on FSD. Better and more structured education of urologists and residents in urology on FSD in The Netherlands is urgently needed.
|Neurourology and Urodynamics|
|Organisation||Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam|
Scheepe, J.R, Alamyar, M, Pastoor, H, Hintzen, R.Q, & Blok, B.F.M. (2017). Female sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: Results of a survey among Dutch urologists and patients. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 36(1), 116–120. doi:10.1002/nau.22884