INTRODUCTION: There is a strong association between urological complaints, sexual dysfunction, and history of sexual abuse (SA), and it is unknown whether urological continence nurses integrate this knowledge in their daily practice. AIM: To evaluate how, in their daily practice, Dutch urological continence nurses address sexual dysfunction and possible SA. METHODS: An anonymous 19-item questionnaire was distributed among all Dutch urinary continence nurses visiting their yearly congress. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey results. RESULTS: The response rate was 48.9% (93/190). Of the respondents, 11.8% did not ask their female patients about sexual function; 37.6% asked only rarely; 44.1% asked often; and 6.5% always asked. Sexual functioning in males was not evaluated by the majority of the nurses (13.2% never, and 46.2% rarely). A minority of continence nurses asked males about sexual functioning (36.3% often and 4.3% always). Important reasons for not asking were insufficient knowledge of how to adequately ask males (38.9%) and females (47.8%) about sexual problems, and because nurses assumed the urologist had addressed this issue (48.1% asking males, 39.1% asking females). Younger nurses found it particularly difficult to raise sexual issues with both male and female patients (P=0.001 and P=0.003, respectively). Screening for sexual dysfunction was stated to be important by almost all nurses (65.2% "quite important," and 31.5% "very important"). Within their patient population, both male and female, 28% of the nurses never asked about SA and 49.5% asked only rarely. CONCLUSION: Dutch urological incontinence nurses acknowledge the importance of sexual problems in their patient population, but asking about this issue was not part of routine care. The main reasons for not asking, according to the nurses' responses, were that they had insufficient knowledge and that they assumed the urologist had already asked about sexual problems.
INTRODUCTION: There is a strong association between urological complaints, sexual dysfunction, and history of sexual abuse (SA), and it is unknown whether urological continence nurses integrate this knowledge in their daily practice. AIM: To evaluate how, in their daily practice, Dutch urological continence nurses address sexual dysfunction and possible SA. METHODS: An anonymous 19-item questionnaire was distributed among all Dutch urinary continence nurses visiting their yearly congress. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey results. RESULTS: The response rate was 48.9% (93/190). Of the respondents, 11.8% did not ask their female patients about sexual function; 37.6% asked only rarely; 44.1% asked often; and 6.5% always asked. Sexual functioning in males was not evaluated by the majority of the nurses (13.2% never, and 46.2% rarely). A minority of continence nurses asked males about sexual functioning (36.3% often and 4.3% always). Important reasons for not asking were insufficient knowledge of how to adequately ask males (38.9%) and females (47.8%) about sexual problems, and because nurses assumed the urologist had addressed this issue (48.1% asking males, 39.1% asking females). Younger nurses found it particularly difficult to raise sexual issues with both male and female patients (P=0.001 and P=0.003, respectively). Screening for sexual dysfunction was stated to be important by almost all nurses (65.2% "quite important," and 31.5% "very important"). Within their patient population, both male and female, 28% of the nurses never asked about SA and 49.5% asked only rarely. CONCLUSION: Dutch urological incontinence nurses acknowledge the importance of sexual problems in their patient population, but asking about this issue was not part of routine care. The main reasons for not asking, according to the nurses' responses, were that they had insufficient knowledge and that they assumed the urologist had already asked about sexual problems.
Authors: Pieter C Barnhoorn; Hannah R Zuurveen; Inge C Prins; Gaby F van Ek; Brenda L den Oudsten; Marjolein E M den Ouden; Hein Putter; Mattijs E Numans; Henk W Elzevier Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 2.267