| Literature DB >> 35283965 |
Mona Rahnavardi1, Zahra Bostani Khalesi1, Sedighe Rezaie-Chamani1.
Abstract
Background: A healthy lifestyle has a key role in reducing health problems. Since one of the most common problems in Postmenopausal women has been sexual dysfunction (SD). The specific purpose of the present study was to identify the effects of health-promoting lifestyle (HPL) on sexual function among postmenopausal women.Entities:
Keywords: Lifestyle; Postmenopausal Women; Sexual Function
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35283965 PMCID: PMC8889829 DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v21i4.40
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Afr Health Sci ISSN: 1680-6905 Impact factor: 0.927
Distribution of Participants According to Demographic Features
| Variable | (N =405) % | ||
|
|
| 56 ± | 6 |
|
| 59 ± | 8 | |
|
| 35±9 | ||
|
| <2 | 72(17.8) | |
| 3–5 | 216(53.33) | ||
| 6–8 | 87(21.48) | ||
| 9–11 | 23(5.67) | ||
| >12 | 7(1.72) | ||
|
| <2 | 82(20.26) | |
| 3–5 | 214(52.84) | ||
| 6–8 | 87(21.48) | ||
| 9–11 | 18(4.44) | ||
| >12 | 4(0.98) | ||
|
| <2 | 84(20.75) | |
| 3–5 | 216(53.33) | ||
| 6–8 | 85(20.98) | ||
| 9–11 | 17(4.2) | ||
| >12 | 3(0.74) | ||
|
|
| Primary or Secondary School | 25(18.25) |
| High School | 39(28.46) | ||
| Diploma | 57(41.6) | ||
| University education | 16(11.67) | ||
|
| Primary or Secondary School | 29(21.16) | |
| High School | 32(23.36) | ||
| Diploma | 55(40.15) | ||
| University education | 21(15.33) | ||
|
|
| Unemployed | 386(95.31) |
| Employed | 19(4.69) | ||
|
| Unemployed | 271(66.91) | |
| Employed | 134(33.08) | ||
|
| <500 | 48 (11.85) | |
| 500–1 | 134 (33.08) | ||
| 1–1.5 | 92 (22.72) | ||
| 1.5–2 | 90 (22.22) | ||
| >2 | 41(10.12) | ||
|
|
| No | 403(99.5) |
| Cigarettes | 2(0.5) | ||
|
| No | 306(75.55) | |
| Cigarettes | 77(19.01) | ||
| Opium | 21(5.19) | ||
| Alcohol | 1(0.5) | ||
Mean scores
Standard Deviation
The correlation between the FSFI and HPLP II sub-scales
| FSFI Sub-scales | Desire | Arousal | Lubrication | Orgasm | Satisfaction | Pain | Total |
|
| 0.076 | 0.046 | 0.047 | 0.045 | 0.089 | 0.081 | 0.048 |
| 0.000 | 0.061 | 0.007 | 0.051 | -0.005 | -0.038 | 0.02 | |
|
| 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.038 | 0.084 | 0.052 | 0.016 | 0.088 |
|
| 0.077 | 0.032 | 0.033 | 0.051 | 0.045 | 0.036 | 0.06 |
| 0.082 | 0.088 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.097 | 0.000 | |
| -0.062 | 0.028 | -0.094 | -0.015 | -0.031 | -0.095 | -0.053 | |
|
| 0.079 | 0.000 | 0.089 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.055 | 0.000 |
P < 0.05
P < 0.001
P < 0.0001
Comparison of HPLP II scores between participants with and without FSD
| HPLP II Sub-scale | Women with FSD (N | Women without FSD (N | |
|
| 2.56 ± 2.2 | 3.68 ± 1.3 | <0.001 |
|
| 2.06 ± 4.7 | 3.18 ± 1.8 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.82 ± 1.8 | 2.54± 2.6 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.17 ± 3.3 | 1.73 ± 3.5 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.92 ± 2.8 | 2.26 ± 2.4 | 0.04 |
|
| 1.87 ± 2.3 | 2.67 ± 3.1 | <0.001 |
|
| 2.02 ± 2.2 | 2.52 ± 1.3 | 0.02 |
FSD: defined according to FSFI total score ≤ 28