Contents
pdf Download PDF
pdf Download XML
151 Views
139 Downloads
Share this article
Research Article | Volume 6 Issue 1 (None, 2020) | Pages 149 - 159
Comparative analysis of sexual function and quality of life in women with and without pelvic floor disorder
Under a Creative Commons license
Open Access
Received
March 13, 2020
Revised
March 21, 2020
Accepted
May 22, 2020
Published
June 20, 2020
Abstract
Background: Pelvic floor disorders, including urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, faecal incontinence and pelvic pain, may adversely affect women’s physical, psychological, social and sexual well-being. However, sexual concerns are frequently underreported and may not be routinely assessed during clinical care. Aim: To compare sexual function and quality of life among women with and without pelvic floor disorders. Materials and Methods: A hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 women. The study group comprised 100 women with clinically identified pelvic floor disorders, while the comparison group included 100 women without pelvic floor disorders. Pelvic floor symptoms were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20. Sexual function was assessed using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-IUGA Revised, and quality of life was evaluated using the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF questionnaire. Continuous variables were compared using Welch’s independent-samples t-test, while categorical variables were analysed using the chi-square test. Effect estimates were presented as mean differences or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Women with pelvic floor disorders had a significantly lower mean overall PISQ-IR score than women without PFD [52.8 (12.4) versus 68.9 (10.7); MD=-16.10; 95% CI: -19.33 to -12.87; P<0.001]. Sexual dysfunction was present in 63.0% and 24.0% of women, respectively (OR=5.39; 95% CI: 2.92-9.95; P<0.001), while sexual inactivity was more frequent in the PFD group (26.0% versus 14.0%; OR=2.16; 95% CI: 1.05-4.44; P=0.034). All PISQ-IR domains were significantly poorer among sexually active women with PFD, with the largest difference in the condition-impact domain (MD=-31.20; 95% CI: -35.90 to -26.50; P<0.001). The overall WHOQOL-BREF score was also significantly lower in the PFD group [61.7 (11.2) versus 74.6 (9.3); MD=-12.90; 95% CI: -15.77 to -10.03; P<0.001]. Impaired quality of life affected 58.0% of women with PFD and 19.0% of controls (OR=5.89; 95% CI: 3.11-11.15; P<0.001). Severe PFD was associated with higher odds of sexual dysfunction (OR=8.24; 95% CI: 2.09-32.46) and impaired quality of life (OR=10.42; 95% CI: 2.91-37.29) compared with mild PFD. Conclusion: Pelvic floor disorders were strongly associated with poorer sexual function and quality of life, particularly when the disorders were combined or severe. Incorporating sexual-health and quality-of-life assessment into routine PFD care may facilitate comprehensive, patient-centred management.
Keywords
Recommended Articles
Original Article
Comparative analysis of sexual function and quality of life in women with and without pelvic floor disorder.
Published: 20/07/2020
Chat on WhatsApp
© Copyright Journal of Contemporary Clinical Practice