Urology · 2016
Omissions in Urology Residency Training Regarding Sexual Dysfunction Subsequent to Prostate Cancer Treatment: Identifying a Need.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Krouwel Esmée M, Grondhuis Palacios Lorena A, Putter Hein, Pelger Rob C M, Kloens Gert Jan, Elzevier Henk W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess urology residents' current knowledge, practice, previous training, barriers, and training needs regarding prostate cancer treatment-related sexual dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire study inventoried the practice patterns and training need of urology residents attending a national training course in June 2015.
RESULTS: Of 101 urology residents throughout the Netherlands, 87 attended the training (response rate 100%). Median age was 32 years (range 28-38); 55.2% were woman. Regardless of the residency level, most trainees had never received education about sexual dysfunction (58.6%), reported a limited level of knowledge (48.3%), and indicated an evident need for training (69.4%). The majority did not feel competent to advise prostate cancer patients regarding the treatment of sexual dysfunction (55.2%). Almost all participants inquired about preoperative erectile dysfunction (89.7%), and always informed about treatment-related sexual dysfunction (88.5%). At follow-up, 63.9% of the residents routinely addressed sexual complaints again. More than half of the participants indicated that urology residency training does not provide sufficient education on sexual dysfunction (54.8%).Time constraint (67.1%) and lack of training (35.3%) were the most frequently mentioned barriers.
CONCLUSION: Current urology residency does not pay sufficient attention to sexual communication skills and sexual dysfunction. The residents require more knowledge about and more practical training in sexual counseling. Findings support efforts to enhance the education of urology residents regarding prostate cancer treatment-related sexual dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire study inventoried the practice patterns and training need of urology residents attending a national training course in June 2015.
RESULTS: Of 101 urology residents throughout the Netherlands, 87 attended the training (response rate 100%). Median age was 32 years (range 28-38); 55.2% were woman. Regardless of the residency level, most trainees had never received education about sexual dysfunction (58.6%), reported a limited level of knowledge (48.3%), and indicated an evident need for training (69.4%). The majority did not feel competent to advise prostate cancer patients regarding the treatment of sexual dysfunction (55.2%). Almost all participants inquired about preoperative erectile dysfunction (89.7%), and always informed about treatment-related sexual dysfunction (88.5%). At follow-up, 63.9% of the residents routinely addressed sexual complaints again. More than half of the participants indicated that urology residency training does not provide sufficient education on sexual dysfunction (54.8%).Time constraint (67.1%) and lack of training (35.3%) were the most frequently mentioned barriers.
CONCLUSION: Current urology residency does not pay sufficient attention to sexual communication skills and sexual dysfunction. The residents require more knowledge about and more practical training in sexual counseling. Findings support efforts to enhance the education of urology residents regarding prostate cancer treatment-related sexual dysfunction.