(045) A PHYSICIAN'S GUIDE TO LUBRICANT FOR SEX
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Lubricant use during sexual activity has numerous benefits, minimal harms, and can play a role in managing common concerns in primary care. However, navigating evidence-based conversations about lubricant use can be challenging since there is a lack of easily accessible and reliable information. As a result, physicians are often hesitant to discuss the topic and can only offer anecdotal advice. Objective To review literature on lubricants used during sexual activity to (1) inform the development of an inclusive and practical evidence-based tool for physicians to help incorporate patient-specific recommendations for lubricants into clinical practice, and (2) create accessible materials for patients. Methods We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Using relevant keywords, we searched two electronic databases, one search engine, and reference lists for articles published in 2003 and onward. Articles generated were manually reviewed for relevance with further inclusion criteria: (1) identifies patient populations most likely to benefit from using lubricant during sexual activity, (2) addresses benefits and drawbacks of different lubricant classes, or (3) describes ingredients in or properties of lubricants that may cause harm. All sexually active individuals were deemed eligible for inclusion in the study, with no restrictions placed on location, age, gender, or sexual orientation. Following the completion of our scoping review, we used an evidence-based approach to develop a clinical practice tool and patient handout. During their development and to validate our findings, family physicians, nurses, psychologists specializing in sexual concerns, and sexual health educators provided iterative review. Results 27 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion in our scoping review. Results showed lubricant use to be especially beneficial for patients who (1) experience dryness, pain, or sexual dysfunction during any type of sex, (2) are at a higher risk of STI transmission (by reducing condom breakage), or (3) want to reduce the risk of having an unplanned pregnancy (by reducing condom breakage). There are three main types of lubricant available: oil, water, and silicone-based. Oil-based lubricant is not recommended since it is incompatible with latex condoms and is more likely to irritate genital epithelium and negatively impact genital microbiota. When comparing silicone and water-based lubricant, silicone-based lubricant lasts longer but is more difficult to wash off. Silicone-based lubricant is not compatible with silicone-based sex toys, whereas water-based lubricant is compatible with all types of sex toys. Water-based lubricant is also more likely than silicone-based lubricant to contain potentially irritating ingredients and properties, such as glycerol, propylene glycol, parabens, or a high osmolality. For patients who are struggling with infertility, most lubricants should be avoided as they can negatively affect sperm motility and viability. Conclusions Numerous patients can benefit from lubricant use during sexual activity. In particular, silicone and water-based lubricant without harmful additives or properties are recommended. Our guide on lubricants will assist physicians in identifying patients who may benefit from using lubricant and incorporating patient-specific recommendations into clinical practice. This, in addition to our patient handout, will help to improve discussions between patients and healthcare providers regarding sexual well-being and lubricant use. Disclosure No.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».