Perceptions on sexual activity after total knee and total hip arthroplasty:A mixed method study of patients, partners, and surgeons

BackgroundIn-depth insight into couples’ experiences of sexual activity before and after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is lacking. The aim of this study was to explore patients’ and partners’ experiences, complemented by surgeons’ opinions on safe resumption of sexual activity after surgery.MethodsMixed method study: 1) Semi-structured interviews among sexually active couples, 1.5 years postoperatively and 2) A survey among surgeons about recommendations of sexual activity after THA/TKA.ResultsOf the 150 invited couples, 90 (60%) responded (THA: n=39; TKA: n=42). Five couples participated (THA: n=3; TKA: n=2), while 85 (94%) couples refused participation. Two themes emerged: “Couples physically and mentally adjusted to the new situation” and “Couples undoubtedly trusted the surgeon as the provider of information.” In total, 27% (47/175) of THA surgeons participated. Fifty percent agreed with the recommended sexual positions researched by Charbonnier et al. Opinions differed widely regarding when to safely resume sexual activity. Of the TKA surgeons, 36% (76/211) responded. Almost all surgeons (95%) agreed that there were no restrictions. However, some discomfort was expected when patients bend the knee or kneel during sex. Half of the surgeons indicated that providing information about sex was necessary.ConclusionsAll couples physically and mentally adapted to the new situation without considering safety measures. Patients trusted surgeons in providing safety information. Surgeons should inform patients succinct and explicitly, especially since surgeons’ recommendations showed great variability. More motion research on hip and knee may add to uniform guidelines

Let's talk about sex:Exploring factors influencing the discussion of sexual health among chronically Ill patients in general practice

Background Chronic diseases are often associated with sexual dysfunction (SD). Little is known about the practice patterns of general practitioners (GPs) regarding sexual care for chronically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine; to what extent GPs discuss SD with chronically ill patients; the barriers that may stop them; and the factors associated with discussing SD. Methods A cross-sectional survey using a 58-item questionnaire was sent to 604 Dutch GPs. Descriptive statistics and associations were used for analysis of the data. Results Nearly 58% (n = 350) of all GPs approached gave a response and 204 questionnaires were analysable (33.8%). Almost 60% of respondents considered discussing SD with patients important (58.3%, n = 119). During the first consultation, 67.5% (n = 137) of the GPs reported that they never discussed SD. The most important barrier stopping them was lack of time (51.7%, n = 104). The majority (90.2%, n = 184) stated that the GP was responsible for addressing SD; 70.1% (n = 143) indicated that the GP practice somatic care nurse (GPN) was also responsible. Nearly 80% (n = 161) of respondents were unaware of agreements within the practice on accountability for discussing SD. This group discussed SD less often during first and follow-up consults (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Of the respondents, 61.5% (n = 116) felt that they had received insufficient education in SD and 74.6% (n = 150) stated that the subject is seldom discussed during training. Approximately 62% of the GPs (n = 123) wanted to increase their knowledge, preferably through extra training. According to 53.2% of the GPs (n = 107) it was important to improve the knowledge of the GPN. The most frequently mentioned tool that could help improve the conversation about SD was the availability of information brochures for patients (n = 123, 60.3%). Conclusions This study indicates that Dutch GPs do not discuss SD with chronically ill patients routinely, mainly due to lack of time. An efficient tool is needed to enable GPs to address SD in a time-saving manner. Increased availability of informational materials, agreements on accountability within GP practices, and extra training for the GPs and GPNs could improve the discussion of SD

Discussing sexuality with patients with Parkinson's disease:A survey among Dutch neurologists

Sexual functioning is often impaired in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) and may affect quality of life of patients and their spouse. However, little is known about the practice patterns of neurologists with regard to discussing sexuality in this field. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate to what extent neurologists discuss sexuality with PD patients. A 22-item questionnaire was sent to 139 neurologists specializing in PD. The survey contained questions about their attitudes, knowledge, and practice patterns with respect to sexual dysfunction (SD) in patients with PD. The response rate of the survey was 66.9%. Most participants (56.8%) stated that they address sexuality in less than half of their PD patients. High age of patients (42.0%), insufficient consultation time (37.5%), and a lack of patients’ initiative to raise the topic themselves (36.4%) were frequently reported barriers towards discussing sexuality. The majority of participants considered that discussing sexuality is a responsibility that lay with neurologists (85.2%), nurses (73.9%), and patients (72.7%). One quarter of the neurologists reported to have insufficient or no knowledge on SD. The majority of participants regarded screening for SD important or slightly important (85.2%). A large proportion of Dutch neurologists specializing in PD do not routinely discuss sexuality with their PD patients. Sexual healthcare in PD patients may benefit from time-efficient tools and agreements on who is responsible for discussing SD. Furthermore, recommendations in PD guidelines on screening and managing SD should be adapted to fit everyday practice

Seksuele disfunctie en relatieproblemen na prostaatkankerbehandeling: De gewenste zorg vanuit het oogpunt van patiënt en partner

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is one of the most common side effects of prostate cancer (PC) treatment and may lead to changes in a relationship. The aim of this study was to identify sexual and/or relational problems and to investigate what kind of supportive care is preferred by patients and their partners. A cross-sectional survey was performed among men diagnosed with PC enrolled in active surveillance or treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy or hormonal therapy. If possible, partners were included as well. Out of 250 patients, 80,5% suffered from moderate to severe erectile complaints. Half of them (53,7%) was treated for ED and a great part was partially (30,7%) up to not satisfied (25,7%). Out of 168 partners, 50,6% found it difficult to cope with changes around sexuality. The majority of men (74,7%) preferred a standard consultation with a urologist-sexologist three months after treatment to discuss sexuality

Treatment-Related Sexual Side Effects From the Perspective of Partners of Men With Prostate Cancer

Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc

Let's talk about sex: exploring factors influencing the discussion of sexual health among chronically Ill patients in general practice

Background Chronic diseases are often associated with sexual dysfunction (SD). Little is known about the practice patterns of general practitioners (GPs) regarding sexual care for chronically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine; to what extent GPs discuss SD with chronically ill patients; the barriers that may stop them; and the factors associated with discussing SD. Methods A cross-sectional survey using a 58-item questionnaire was sent to 604 Dutch GPs. Descriptive statistics and associations were used for analysis of the data. Results Nearly 58% (n = 350) of all GPs approached gave a response and 204 questionnaires were analysable (33.8%). Almost 60% of respondents considered discussing SD with patients important (58.3%, n = 119). During the first consultation, 67.5% (n = 137) of the GPs reported that they never discussed SD. The most important barrier stopping them was lack of time (51.7%, n = 104). The majority (90.2%, n = 184) stated that the GP was responsible for addressing SD; 70.1% (n = 143) indicated that the GP practice somatic care nurse (GPN) was also responsible. Nearly 80% (n = 161) of respondents were unaware of agreements within the practice on accountability for discussing SD. This group discussed SD less often during first and follow-up consults (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Of the respondents, 61.5% (n = 116) felt that they had received insufficient education in SD and 74.6% (n = 150) stated that the subject is seldom discussed during training. Approximately 62% of the GPs (n = 123) wanted to increase their knowledge, preferably through extra training. According to 53.2% of the GPs (n = 107) it was important to improve the knowledge of the GPN. The most frequently mentioned tool that could help improve the conversation about SD was the availability of information brochures for patients (n = 123, 60.3%). Conclusions This study indicates that Dutch GPs do not discuss SD with chronically ill patients routinely, mainly due to lack of time. An efficient tool is needed to enable GPs to address SD in a time-saving manner. Increased availability of informational materials, agreements on accountability within GP practices, and extra training for the GPs and GPNs could improve the discussion of SD

Let's talk about sex: Exploring factors influencing the discussion of sexual health among chronically Ill patients in general practice

Background Chronic diseases are often associated with sexual dysfunction (SD). Little is known about the practice patterns of general practitioners (GPs) regarding sexual care for chronically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine; to what extent GPs discuss SD with chronically ill patients; the barriers that may stop them; and the factors associated with discussing SD. Methods A cross-sectional survey using a 58-item questionnaire was sent to 604 Dutch GPs. Descriptive statistics and associations were used for analysis of the data. Results Nearly 58% (n = 350) of all GPs approached gave a response and 204 questionnaires were analysable (33.8%). Almost 60% of respondents considered discussing SD with patients important (58.3%, n = 119). During the first consultation, 67.5% (n = 137) of the GPs reported that they never discussed SD. The most important barrier stopping them was lack of time (51.7%, n = 104). The majority (90.2%, n = 184) stated that the GP was responsible for addressing SD; 70.1% (n = 143) indicated that the GP practice somatic care nurse (GPN) was also responsible. Nearly 80% (n = 161) of respondents were unaware of agreements within the practice on accountability for discussing SD. This group discussed SD less often during first and follow-up consults (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Of the respondents, 61.5% (n = 116) felt that they had received insufficient education in SD and 74.6% (n = 150) stated that the subject is seldom discussed during training. Approximately 62% of the GPs (n = 123) wanted to increase their knowledge, preferably through extra training. According to 53.2% of the GPs (n = 107) it was important to improve the knowledge of the GPN. The most frequently mentioned tool that could help improve the conversation about SD was the availability of information brochures for patients (n = 123, 60.3%). Conclusions This study indicates that Dutch GPs do not discuss SD with chronically ill patients routinely, mainly due to lack of time. An efficient tool is needed to enable GPs to address SD in a time-saving manner. Increased availability of informational materials, agreements on accountability within GP practices, and extra training for the GPs and GPNs could improve the discussion of SD

Let's talk about sex: exploring factors influencing the discussion of sexual health among chronically Ill patients in general practice

Background Chronic diseases are often associated with sexual dysfunction (SD). Little is known about the practice patterns of general practitioners (GPs) regarding sexual care for chronically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine; to what extent GPs discuss SD with chronically ill patients; the barriers that may stop them; and the factors associated with discussing SD. Methods A cross-sectional survey using a 58-item questionnaire was sent to 604 Dutch GPs. Descriptive statistics and associations were used for analysis of the data. Results Nearly 58% (n = 350) of all GPs approached gave a response and 204 questionnaires were analysable (33.8%). Almost 60% of respondents considered discussing SD with patients important (58.3%, n = 119). During the first consultation, 67.5% (n = 137) of the GPs reported that they never discussed SD. The most important barrier stopping them was lack of time (51.7%, n = 104). The majority (90.2%, n = 184) stated that the GP was responsible for addressing SD; 70.1% (n = 143) indicated that the GP practice somatic care nurse (GPN) was also responsible. Nearly 80% (n = 161) of respondents were unaware of agreements within the practice on accountability for discussing SD. This group discussed SD less often during first and follow-up consults (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Of the respondents, 61.5% (n = 116) felt that they had received insufficient education in SD and 74.6% (n = 150) stated that the subject is seldom discussed during training. Approximately 62% of the GPs (n = 123) wanted to increase their knowledge, preferably through extra training. According to 53.2% of the GPs (n = 107) it was important to improve the knowledge of the GPN. The most frequently mentioned tool that could help improve the conversation about SD was the availability of information brochures for patients (n = 123, 60.3%). Conclusions This study indicates that Dutch GPs do not discuss SD with chronically ill patients routinely, mainly due to lack of time. An efficient tool is needed to enable GPs to address SD in a time-saving manner. Increased availability of informational materials, agreements on accountability within GP practices, and extra training for the GPs and GPNs could improve the discussion of SD.Public Health and primary carePrevention, Population and Disease management (PrePoD

Let’s talk about sex: Seksuele gezondheid van chronisch zieken

Seksualiteit is belangrijk, ook voor mensen met een chronische ziekte. Chronische ziekten zorgen echter vaak voor seksuele problemen. Doordat de prevalentie van chronische ziekten toeneemt, wordt het thema seksualiteit in de spreekkamer steeds belangrijker. Ook als de patiënt er niet over begint, zou de huisarts het onderwerp moeten aankaarten. Vaak komt het daar echter niet van, meestal door tijdgebrek, Bewustwording en training van huisartsen en praktijkondersteuners kunnen hierin misschien verbetering brengen

Written information material and availability of sexual health care for men experiencing sexual dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment:An evaluation of dutch urology and radiotherapy departments

Objective was to investigate content of written information material and availability of sexual health care for men experiencing sexual dysfunction (SD) after prostate cancer treatment. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among Dutch urology and radiotherapy departments to evaluate information materials and availability of sexual health care. Out of 71 eligible departments, 34 urology and 15 radiotherapy departments participated in the survey (response rate 69.0%). Fifty-nine brochures corresponding to 31 urology and 11 radiotherapy departments were analysed. In 88.1% of collected information material, sexual health was mentioned. Regarding extensiveness, 20.4% of the brochures contained extensive information, 50.8% moderate amount of information and 28.8% contained little or no information. Urology departments provided pre-treatment nurse consultations more often than radiotherapy departments. Sexual counselling was more frequently provided by urology departments. Urology departments were more aware of adequate referral possibilities. Information material provided by Dutch urology and radiotherapy departments does not address treatment-related SD routinely. Sexual health care is not available everywhere for men experiencing SD. Applying a standard regarding content of sexual health in information material is recommended as well as improved awareness of referral possibilities and enhanced provision of pre-treatment nurse consultations for men experiencing SD after prostate cancer treatment