| Literature DB >> 32494186 |
Sara Rezaei1, Sima Mohammadhossini1, Zohreh Karimi2, Parviz Yazdanpanah3, Maryam Zarei Nezhad4, Hamid Reza Ghafarian Shirazi5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual dysfunction is a little-addressed condition in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Aerobic exercises, including walking, can help alleviate this dysfunction. This study aimed to determine the effect of an 8-week aerobic walking program on sexual function ine patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Entities:
Keywords: rheumatoid arthritis; sexual function of women; walking
Year: 2020 PMID: 32494186 PMCID: PMC7231853 DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S252591
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Gen Med ISSN: 1178-7074
Figure 1Consort flow diagram.
Eight-week aerobic walking program
| Weeks | Warmup (minutes) | Walking (minutes) | Cool-down (minutes) | Total time (minutes) | Intensity | Number of sessions per week |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st and 2nd | 5 | 40 | 5 | 50 | 60 | 5 |
| 3rd and 4th | 5 | 35 | 5 | 45 | 60 | 4 |
| 5th and 6th | 5 | 30 | 5 | 40 | 70 | 3 |
| 7th and 8th | 5 | 25 | 5 | 35 | 70 | 3 |
Demographic characteristics of intervention and control groups
| Group | Mean ± SD | n (%) | Statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | 40.4±6.5 | — | 0.589 | Independent-sample | ||
| Control | 41.2±6.9 | — | ||||
| Intervention | 75.24±12.8 | — | 0.783 | Independent-sample | ||
| Control | 74.15±14.9 | — | ||||
| Intervention | 5.7±5.8 | — | 0.231 | Independent-sample | ||
| Control | 7.57±4.8 | — | ||||
| Intervention | 34.8±7.4 | — | 0.729 | Independent-sample | ||
| Control | 33.68±8.62 | — | ||||
| Intervention | — | Housewife | 14 (56) | 0.057 | ||
| Employer or student | 11 (44) | |||||
| Control | — | Housewife | 21 (80.8) | |||
| Employer or student | 5 (16.2) | |||||
| Intervention | — | City | 22 (88) | 0.057 | ||
| Village | 3 (12) | |||||
| Control | — | City | 17 (65.4) | |||
| Village | 9 (34.6) | |||||
| Intervention | — | C-section | 7 (28) | 0.225 | ||
| Vaginal | 16 (64) | |||||
| both | 2 (8) | |||||
| Control | — | C-section | 3 (11.5) | |||
| Vaginal | 18 (69.2) | |||||
| both | 5 (19.2) | |||||
| Intervention | With | 21 (84) | 0.34 | |||
| Without | 4 (16) | |||||
| Control | With | 26 (100) | ||||
| Without | 0 | |||||
| Intervention | With | 22 (88) | 0.959 | |||
| Without | 3 (12) | |||||
| Control | With | 23 (88.5) | ||||
| Without | 3 (5/11) | |||||
Comparison of Sexual Function Between the Intervention and Control Groups Before Intervention (Time 1), Immediately After Intervention (Time 2), and Four Weeks After Intervention (Time 3)
| Time | Group | n | Mean ± SD | Test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual performance score | First | Intervention | 25 | 17.66±4.00 | |
| Control | 26 | 17.6±4.24 | |||
| Second | Intervention | 25 | 22.88±4.7 | ||
| Control | 26 | 17.27±4.66 | |||
| Third | Intervention | 25 | 17.39±4.39 | ||
| Control | 26 | 17.39±4.39 |
Pairwise comparison of sexual function scores between the intervention and control groups before intervention (time 1), immediately after intervention (time 2), and 4 weeks after intervention (time 3)
| Time 2 | Time 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Time 1 | Mean difference 5.216, | Mean ifference 6.728, |
| Time 2 | — | Mean difference 1.512, |