MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2408987488 · doi:10.1007/s00059-007-2824-3

[Management of sexual dysfunctions in the rehabilitation of cardiovascular diseases. Results of a staff survey].

2007· article· en· W2408987488 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cindy Günzler, Anja Harms, Levente Kriston

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSexual function and dysfunction studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineErectile dysfunctionSexual dysfunctionRehabilitationQuarter (Canadian coin)Family medicineContinuing medical educationPsychiatryContinuing educationPhysical therapyMedical education

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many studies demonstrate a high prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in cardiovascular patients. Findings show that patients often do not talk about their sexual problems. Many patients believe that their physician would not take their problem seriously. However, they wish to be asked by their physician and want to get information. The medical staff also avoids to broach the issue of sexual problems even when they assume an ED. Reasons for an insufficient inquiry are often lack of time or knowledge as well as emotional inhibitions. METHODS: 51 members of the medical staff of five hospitals for rehabilitation of cardiovascular diseases filled in a standardized, anonymous five-page questionnaire. It consisted of questions regarding sociodemography, estimated prevalence of sexual dysfunction, knowledge, responsibility, impediments for adequate diagnosis and therapy, as well as need for continuing medical education. Likely predictors (age, sex, profession, knowledge, and responsibility) for an active attitude were examined using relative risks. RESULTS: Of the 51 employees, 54% were men, more than half were physicians. The mean age was 44.3 years. The estimated prevalence of sexual dysfunction was 45.4 +/- 20.3%. Less than half of the medical professionals rated their knowledge concerning therapy motivation (47.9%) and general consultation of cardiovascular patients (38.8%) as at least good (see Figure 1). While more than two thirds felt responsible for motivation to subsequent treatment of sexual dysfunction, less than one quarter motivated the patients actively. Over 50% felt responsible for consultation and information, but only 27% did it actively (see Figure 2). The main impediment for an adequate management of sexual problems was the lack of time (38.3%). However, every fourth also believed that the patient would not accept the diagnosis (29.2%) or a therapy (22.9%). One third of the employees agreed that the own lack of knowledge makes care of sexual problems difficult. On the question what would be helpful to improve the management with sexual concerns, most employees said that education and training (85.7%) would be the most effective method (see Figure 3). The highest need for training can be seen in diagnostics (64.4%; see Figure 4). Almost all professionals believed that a screener would be reasonable. A higher knowledge state was the only significant predictor for an active management of sexual problems (see Table 1). CONCLUSION: The reported prevalence of sexual dysfunction in cardiac rehabilitation is very high. This requires skills concerning diagnosis and treatment of sexual dysfunction, which are only scarcely present. Furthermore, there are many impediments that are mainly positioned in the health-care system. The skills should be improved by an effort in continuing medical education. Patients with ED often have depression and a reduced quality of life. To improve the quality of life of patients in the cardiovascular rehabilitation, the treatment of ED is a necessary condition. Trials show that a widespread rehabilitation program which includes a sexual education leads to a better sexual activity. The patients' quality of life can only be improved, if the medical staff includes relevant concomitant disorders to cardiovascular disease, like ED, in the treatment program of patients.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,560
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,247

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetSexual function and dysfunction studiesTravaux en français237 207