RESUMO
IMPORTANCE: Urogynecology patients often present with sexual dysfunction; limited information on vibrator utilization to improve sexual function in this population exists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess patient knowledge of and receptivity to vibrator use. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional, survey-based cohort study. The survey included patient characteristics, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire Short Form 12, and vibrator use questions. Our primary outcome was vibrator utilization rates comparing younger (<65) and older (≥65 years) urogynecology patients. RESULTS: Of 213 distributed, 165 (78%) surveys were analyzed. Of these, 104 participants (63%) were aged <65 years and 61 (37%) were ≥65 years. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (all P's > 0.05). Older patients reported less vibrator utilization than younger patients (30% vs 64%, P ≤ 0.001) and were less likely to be sexually active with a partner (36% vs 62%, P = 0.002) or masturbate (23% vs 51%, P ≤ 0.001). Most patients (76%) thought physicians should discuss vibrators with patients who would like to improve their sexual function with no differences between age groups (71% vs 80%, P = 0.17). Among women receptive to vibrator use, in a multivariable analysis, patients who reported masturbation (odds ratio [OR], 13.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.80-67.71), vibrator use in the past (OR, 24.4; 95% CI, 6.65-89.53), or who believed physicians should discuss vibrators in a clinical setting (OR, 11.66; 95% CI, 2.9-46.81) were more receptive to vibrator use to improve sexual function. Age did not influence receptivity. CONCLUSIONS: Vibrator utilization is greater among younger than older patients. Most urogynecologic patients think health care providers should discuss vibrator use with patients who wish to improve sexual function.
RESUMO
IMPORTANCE: Obesity is a risk factor for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs), but limited information exists about the public awareness of this association. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to assess awareness of the association between obesity and PFDs, comparing 2 cohorts of women with body mass index (BMI) <30 versus BMI ≥30. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional, survey-based cohort study. The survey included questions about demographics, height and weight self-assessment, and the risk of PFDs with obesity. Our primary outcome was the rate of women correctly identifying that obesity increases the risk of PFDs. RESULTS: Of 377 eligible participants 272 (72.1%) completed the survey, with 266 analyzed. Of these, 159 (59.8%) had a BMI <30 and 107 (40.2%) had a BMI ≥30. Comparing the cohorts, the lower BMI cohort was older (mean age of 54.4 ± 18.3 vs 48.4 ± 17.5 years, P = 0.008) and had higher rates of graduate/professional school (35.2% vs 19.6%, P = 0.04). Both groups had similarly high rates of PFDs. There was no difference in identifying obesity as a risk factor for PFDs, although the lower BMI group was less likely to identify the implications of weight loss on urinary incontinence (UI) (27.7% vs 45.8%, P = 0.002). Controlling for potential confounders, obesity remained positively associated with knowledge about the implications of weight loss on UI (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-4.4). CONCLUSIONS: Few women identified the increased risk of PFDs with obesity. Obese women may have increased awareness of the implications of weight loss on UI.
