BACKGROUND: Little sexual health research has been conducted in gay men. Anecdotally, this population seems to experience more bother related to Peyronie's disease (PD). OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of PD on psychosocial factors in gay vs straight men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All PD patients who were seen in the sexual medicine clinic were included. They completed three instruments: the PD questionnaire (PDQ), Self-Esteem and Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire, and a depression questionnaire (CES-D). We described demographics and sexual variables by sexual orientation. We then compared PDQ items and summary scores by sexual orientation, using a series of independent samples t tests. RESULTS: 34 consecutive gay and 464 straight men were included. Age and baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts, with the exception that fewer gay men were partnered (56% vs 87%, P < .01), and those with a partner had a shorter relationship duration: 109 ± 9 months vs 262 ± 175 months, P < .01. For the SEAR questionnaire, gay men demonstrated a more significant psychosocial impact of PD overall with lower SEAR sums (41 vs 57, P = .01) and a lower sexual relationship subdomain score (28 vs 47, P < .01). 41% of gay men vs 26% of straight men had CES-D scores consistent with depression as defined by a score of ≥16 (P = .09). In the PDQ domains, gay men scored less favorably with regard to bother scores (7 vs 5, P = .03) and pain scores (8 vs 4, P = .04). DISCUSSION: Gay men with PD experience significantly more psychosocial impact as evidenced by less favorable SEAR sum and sexual relationship scores, CES-D scores, and PDQ pain and bother domain scores. CONCLUSION: The psychosocial impact of PD is significant in all men, but it appears to be greater in gay men. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: Little sexual health research has been conducted in gay men. Anecdotally, this population seems to experience more bother related to Peyronie's disease (PD). OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of PD on psychosocial factors in gay vs straight men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All PD patients who were seen in the sexual medicine clinic were included. They completed three instruments: the PD questionnaire (PDQ), Self-Esteem and Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire, and a depression questionnaire (CES-D). We described demographics and sexual variables by sexual orientation. We then compared PDQ items and summary scores by sexual orientation, using a series of independent samples t tests. RESULTS: 34 consecutive gay and 464 straight men were included. Age and baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts, with the exception that fewer gay men were partnered (56% vs 87%, P < .01), and those with a partner had a shorter relationship duration: 109 ± 9 months vs 262 ± 175 months, P < .01. For the SEAR questionnaire, gay men demonstrated a more significant psychosocial impact of PD overall with lower SEAR sums (41 vs 57, P = .01) and a lower sexual relationship subdomain score (28 vs 47, P < .01). 41% of gay men vs 26% of straight men had CES-D scores consistent with depression as defined by a score of ≥16 (P = .09). In the PDQ domains, gay men scored less favorably with regard to bother scores (7 vs 5, P = .03) and pain scores (8 vs 4, P = .04). DISCUSSION: Gay men with PD experience significantly more psychosocial impact as evidenced by less favorable SEAR sum and sexual relationship scores, CES-D scores, and PDQ pain and bother domain scores. CONCLUSION: The psychosocial impact of PD is significant in all men, but it appears to be greater in gay men. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Entities:
Keywords:
bother; depression; peyronie’s disease; psychosocial impact; sexual orientation
Authors: John P Mulhall; Steven D Creech; Stephen A Boorjian; Sam Ghaly; Edward D Kim; Ayham Moty; Rodney Davis; Wayne Hellstrom Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christian J Nelson; Chris Diblasio; Muammer Kendirci; Wayne Hellstrom; Patricia Guhring; John P Mulhall Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2008-06-28 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Jeremy A Grey; Kyle T Bernstein; Patrick S Sullivan; David W Purcell; Harrell W Chesson; Thomas L Gift; Eli S Rosenberg Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2016-04-21
Authors: Patrick Low; Lin Wang; Kevin D Li; W Patrick Shibley; Benjamin E Cedars; Jordan T Holler; Anthony Enriquez; Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad; Gregory M Amend; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 2.896