ArticleBMC primary care2022
Let's talk about sex: exploring factors influencing the discussion of sexual health among chronically Ill patients in general practice.
Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence, Acceptability, and Sexual Health Outcomes of the Odeya App-Based Intervention for Sexual Distress in Women With Endometriosis: Randomized Controlled Mixed Methods Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Identifying sexual health concerns, risk-taking and violence using the newly developed SEXIT Adult tool in a Swedish public outpatient sample.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Sexual Distress Scale: Translation, Psychometric Validation, and Reference Values for Cisgender Women and Men in a Representative Population-based Sample in Germany.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2026Article
- Developing an Intervention to Improve Sexual Health Assessment and Care in Men With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- "Our Community is not Appropriately Served": LGBTQ+ Cancer Survivors and Caregivers have Suggestions for Providers.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Assessment of Mental and Chronic Health Conditions as Determinants of Health Care Needs and Digital Innovations for Women With Sexual Dysfunction: Cross-Sectional Population-Based Survey Study in Germany.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Social and sexual networks of newly diagnosed people living with HIV: a qualitative social network analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Enhancing sexual health in primary care: Guidance for practitioners.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024Article
- The knowledge of and educational interest in sexual medicine among Finnish medical and midwifery students: A web-based study.European journal of midwifery · 2024Article
- First insights into the current practice, knowledge, and attitudes of community pharmacists regarding sexual adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional survey.Sexual medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic diseases are often associated with sexual dysfunction (SD). Little is known about the practice patterns of general practitioners (GPs) regarding sexual care for chronically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine; to what extent GPs discuss SD with chronically ill patients; the barriers that may stop them; and the factors associated with discussing SD.
methodsA cross-sectional survey using a 58-item questionnaire was sent to 604 Dutch GPs. Descriptive statistics and associations were used for analysis of the data.
resultsNearly 58% (n = 350) of all GPs approached gave a response and 204 questionnaires were analysable (33.8%). Almost 60% of respondents considered discussing SD with patients important (58.3%, n = 119). During the first consultation, 67.5% (n = 137) of the GPs reported that they never discussed SD. The most important barrier stopping them was lack of time (51.7%, n = 104). The majority (90.2%, n = 184) stated that the GP was responsible for addressing SD; 70.1% (n = 143) indicated that the GP practice somatic care nurse (GPN) was also responsible. Nearly 80% (n = 161) of respondents were unaware of agreements within the practice on accountability for discussing SD. This group discussed SD less often during first and follow-up consults (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Of the respondents, 61.5% (n = 116) felt that they had received insufficient education in SD and 74.6% (n = 150) stated that the subject is seldom discussed during training. Approximately 62% of the GPs (n = 123) wanted to increase their knowledge, preferably through extra training. According to 53.2% of the GPs (n = 107) it was important to improve the knowledge of the GPN. The most frequently mentioned tool that could help improve the conversation about SD was the availability of information brochures for patients (n = 123, 60.3%).
conclusionsThis study indicates that Dutch GPs do not discuss SD with chronically ill patients routinely, mainly due to lack of time. An efficient tool is needed to enable GPs to address SD in a time-saving manner. Increased availability of informational materials, agreements on accountability within GP practices, and extra training for the GPs and GPNs could improve the discussion of SD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.