Journal of women's health (2002) · 2026
Female Sexual Dysfunction in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Vechiu Catalina, Zimmermann Martha, Aubuchon-Endsley Nicki, Kegley Molly, Beker Kidist, Hmaidan Reem, O'Donohue William T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is a health issue that affects life satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and behavioral health. Primary care is an ideal setting to screen for sexual health concerns. However, FSD is often underdetected and undertreated in this setting, which may be due to the limited dissemination of prevalence information about FSD to providers. This meta-analysis aimed to identify the prevalence of the most common forms of FSD in primary care settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was conducted in electronic databases from inception to July 2020, identifying 48 included studies. Eligible studies had longitudinal, cross-sectional, retrospective, or cohort designs that reported the prevalence of FSD domains using screening tools, diagnostic interviews, or data extracted from clinical records of adult female participants in primary care settings.
RESULTS: Among the studies examining overall FSD (n = 16), a random-effects meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence of overall FSD was 39%. The prevalence of FSD ranged from 24% to 29% for the following domains: desire (29%), arousal (28%), lubrication (29%), orgasm (26%), pain (24%), and satisfaction (27%). The test of moderators was not significant, suggesting that the sample type examined across studies (e.g., patients with depression versus diabetes) was not associated with the magnitude of prevalence estimates. The results showed considerable variability in the specific clinical and demographic subpopulations examined (e.g., participants with diabetes versus pregnant women) and measurement methods across studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that FSD is a significant public health concern. Patients with diverse presenting concerns in primary care would benefit from regular screening for FSD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was conducted in electronic databases from inception to July 2020, identifying 48 included studies. Eligible studies had longitudinal, cross-sectional, retrospective, or cohort designs that reported the prevalence of FSD domains using screening tools, diagnostic interviews, or data extracted from clinical records of adult female participants in primary care settings.
RESULTS: Among the studies examining overall FSD (n = 16), a random-effects meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence of overall FSD was 39%. The prevalence of FSD ranged from 24% to 29% for the following domains: desire (29%), arousal (28%), lubrication (29%), orgasm (26%), pain (24%), and satisfaction (27%). The test of moderators was not significant, suggesting that the sample type examined across studies (e.g., patients with depression versus diabetes) was not associated with the magnitude of prevalence estimates. The results showed considerable variability in the specific clinical and demographic subpopulations examined (e.g., participants with diabetes versus pregnant women) and measurement methods across studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that FSD is a significant public health concern. Patients with diverse presenting concerns in primary care would benefit from regular screening for FSD.