What is the "true" prevalence of female sexual dysfunctions and does the way we assess these conditions have an impact?

Hayes, Richard D., Dennerstein, Lorraine, Bennett, Catherine M. and Fairley, Christopher K. 2008, What is the "true" prevalence of female sexual dysfunctions and does the way we assess these conditions have an impact?, Journal of sexual medicine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 777-787, doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00768.x.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title What is the "true" prevalence of female sexual dysfunctions and does the way we assess these conditions have an impact?
Author(s) Hayes, Richard D.
Dennerstein, Lorraine
Bennett, Catherine M.ORCID iD for Bennett, Catherine M. orcid.org/0000-0001-9581-1612
Fairley, Christopher K.
Journal name Journal of sexual medicine
Volume number 5
Issue number 4
Start page 777
End page 787
Total pages 11
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell
Place of publication Oxford, England
Publication date 2008
ISSN 1743-6095
Keyword(s) female sexual dysfunction
Summary Introduction. A wide range of prevalence estimates of female sexual dysfunctions (FSD) have been reported.
Aim. Compare instruments used to assess FSD to determine if differences between instruments contribute to variation in reported prevalence.
Main Outcome Measures. Sexual Function Questionnaire combined with Female Sexual Distress Scale (SFQ-FSDS) was our gold standard, validated instrument for assessing FSD. Alternatives were SFQ alone and two sets of simple questions adapted from Laumann et al. 1994.
Methods. A postal survey was administered to a random sample of 356 Australian women aged 20 to 70 years.
Results. When assessed by SFQ-FSDS, prevalence estimates (95% confidence intervals) of hypoactive sexual desire disorder, sexual arousal disorder (lubrication), orgasmic disorder, and dyspareunia were 16% (12% to 20%), 7% (5% to 11%), 8% (6% to 12%), and 1% (0.5% to 3%), respectively. Prevalence estimates varied across alternative instruments for these disorders: 32% to 58%, 16% to 32%, 16% to 33%, and 3% to 23%, respectively. Compared with SFQ-FSDS alternative instruments produced higher estimates of desire, arousal and orgasm disorders and displayed a range of sensitivities (0.25 to 1.0), specificities (0.48 to 0.99), positive predictive values (0.01 to 0.56), and negative predictive values (0.95 to 1.0) across the disorders investigated. Kappa statistics comparing SFQ-FSDS and alternative instruments ranged from 0 to 0.71 but were predominantly 0.44 or less. Changing recall from previous month to 1 month or more in the previous year produced higher estimates for all disorders investigated. Including sexual distress produced lower estimates for desire, arousal, and orgasm disorders.
Conclusions. Prevalence estimates of FSD varied substantially across instruments. Relatively low positive predictive values and kappa statistics combined with a broad range of sensitivities and specificities indicated that different instruments identified different subgroups. Consequently, the instruments researchers choose when assessing FSD may affect prevalence estimates and risk factors they report.
Language eng
DOI 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00768.x
Field of Research 170105 Gender Psychology
110319 Psychiatry (incl Psychotherapy)
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2008, International Society for Sexual Medicine
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30021948

Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 206 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 220 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 912 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 18 Jan 2010, 11:02:16 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.