Printer Friendly

Different Evaluations Exist between Men with Erectile Dysfunction and Their Female Partners When Using Erectile Hardness Model: An Interesting, Observational, and Cross-Sectional Field Survey.

1. Introduction

Erectile dysfunction (ED), defined as the persistent inability to attain and/or maintain an erection sufficient for sexual performance for at least six months, is one of the most common diseases in males [1]. ED is a complicated interaction between the etiology of vascular, neurogenic, hormonal, psychogenic, iatrogenic, and anatomic causes, which plays an important role in the occurrence of ED [2].

Several large epidemiological studies have shown a high prevalence and incidence of ED worldwide. In the Men's Attitude to Life Events and Sexuality Study, which included 20 to 75-year-old men from 8 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil), the ED prevalence, assessed by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), ranged from 22% in the United States to 10% in Spain [3]. In a study surveying the prevalence of ED among type 2 diabetic Chinese men, among subjects with ED, the most prevalent was mild ED (28.9%), followed by mild-to-moderate (27.9%), moderate (13.4%), and severe (9%) ED [4]. A project launched for estimating the likely worldwide increase in the prevalence of ED in the next 25 years projected that ED will affect 322 million by 2025 [5]. It is evident that ED has become a measurable health disorder for men globally that requires medical and public health attention.

ED has biological, psychological, and social effects on the patients and their sexual partners [6]. A study conducted in China concluded that the prevalence of anxiety and depression were 79.82% and 79.56% in Chinese ED patients and the prevalence and severities of anxiety and depression increased as the ED severity increased [7]. The effects of ED on the partners are strikingly similar to the effects on the patient. When erectile dysfunction occurs in a man, his female partner will suspect her attractiveness and worry that he is potent with other people. These anxious thoughts influence their confidence and lead to anxiety and depression [6]. In conclusion, ED can cause frustration, anxiety, and depression for couples, potentially resulting in separation and/or divorce with the progress of illness. The vicious cycle of anxiety and erectile dysfunction encompasses the entire relationship between the patient and the partner. With the development of this vicious circle, the couples will decrease the frequency of intercourse, time together, and communication [8]. In addition, the Female Experience of Men's Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality study showed that women engaged less frequently in sexual activity after their partner developed ED and that their sex life was less satisfactory when the ED of their partner was severe. Similar results had been reported by other authors [9]. A research found that compared to the general population, the quality of life in people with ED was known to be decreased to on average 10% [10]. It concluded that ED not only harms the health of men but also damages the harmonious relationship between couples.

The emergence of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor in 1998 dramatically altered the treatment landscape for erectile dysfunction [11]. This targeted treatment is convenient for patients and physicians. The clinical efficacy of nonselective treatment for ED can reach 60%-80% [12]. On the contrary, high rates of treatment discontinuation were present in several studies, ranging from 14% to 57% [13-16]. Higher PDE5 discontinuation rates were found in other studies, reaching 80.4% [17]. It is clear that there is a significant disparity between efficacy and continuation rates. Exploring this "disparity phenomenon," we hypothesized that sexual dysfunction typically involves both physiological and psychological aspects, and such medications, although they improve penile neurovascular response, do not address the complex psychological and relationship issues that often accompany a sexual problem. Without exploring the relational issues that result from ED, the treatment efficacy would be limited.

In our daily male outpatient work, we found an interesting phenomenon: when using the erectile hardness measurement model for evaluating and comparing the erectile function of the men in the past six months, the couple who came to the male outpatient for ED came to a different conclusion. More often, the women's response to erectile hardness is more objective and real than the patient himself. This phenomenon reflects the problem of communication and cognition between husband and wife in ED patients. In the general male population, the prevalence of ED has increased to approximately 20%, but less than 30% of patients seek treatment [18]. Due to factors such as Chinese traditional culture, cognitional differences of the patients and their spouses, most men often show sorrow and anxiety about the disease and misconceive this disease. This makes the male patients in the face of the doctor only emphasize the organic factors of their erectile dysfunction, avoiding the related effects of the disease on the sexual partner and both sides. This will cause the doctor to ignore the effect of the ED on the patient's relationship, and the treatment to the patient's erectile function is limited to the use of drugs. However, except in ideal circumstances when these psychosocial forces are not present, dispensing a tablet to reverse these powerful forces is not likely to succeed [19]. Consequently, the exploration of the influencing factor of the aforementioned details will be helpful to the exploration of the psychological factors owing to the illness itself and to attach sexual counseling and sexual education to the drug therapy to improving the treatment efficacy of ED.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors influencing the differences in the evaluation of the penile hardness model between husband and wife. We explore relevant factors from multiple perspectives including duration of ED, duration of relationship, frequency of sexual intercourse, the main reason for treatment of ED, the state of communication, and the psychological burdens of the couples. Moreover, we want to inform andrologists that when treating ED patients with such risk factors, combined drug therapy, sexual counseling, and sex education will achieve better therapeutic goals.

2. Methods

2.1. Patient Selection. Patients who were referred to the Department of Andrology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (Hefei, China), for the erectile dysfunction from December 2017 to December 2018, were enrolled in this study. This study was reviewed and approved by the Anhui Medical University Research Subject Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from all patients before study. To be enrolled in the study, all subjects had to meet the following criteria: (a) males and their female partner aged >18 years; (b) the couples comprehend and speak Chinese; and (c) males having ED for more than six months with a regular heterosexual relation (at least once per week). Exclusion criteria were as follows: take medicine that could affect erectile function, the presence of a severe psychopathological disorder, and suffering from premature ejaculation (according to ISSM definition of PE). Subjects' medical and sexual histories were carefully evaluated by an experienced clinician.

2.2. Study Design. Before the official investigation begins, a presurvey was given to a small sample (n = 30) to modify the originally designed items to ensure that the questionnaire was comprehensive and easily understood owing to several subjective and sensitive personal questions included in the study. This survey was conducted with three steps. Firstly, a question was asked to men with ED (diagnosed with IIEF-5) and their female partner, such as "based on the previous six months, which one of the models was similar to you or your partner erectile hardness." Then, they answered the question by the evaluation model of erectile hardness (see Figure 1). This model made by the Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer Inc., New York, NY) was the visual and tactile version of the standardized Erectile Hardness Score (EHS) tool [20]. It was originally validated and standardized in order to evaluate the efficacy of sildenafil citrate in recovering EF [21]. Its four grades represent four states of the penile, respectively, when stimulated by the sex. The dark blue penis model of the tool (score 4 at the EHS) mirrors the sentence "penis completely hard and fully rigid." The blue penis model of the tool (score 3 at the EHS), in turn, mirrors the sentence "penis hard enough for penetration but not completely hard." The light blue penis model of the tool (score 2 at the EHS) mirrors the sentence "penis is hard but not hard for penetration." The light gray penis model of the tool (score 1 at the EHS) mirrors the sentence "penis is large but not hard." Secondly, a face to face interview was conducted to collect a detailed medical history of the patients, including the duration of relationship, the cause of disease, the duration of disease, the frequency of sexual intercourse, the main reason of treatment, and the use of erectile-related drugs. Additionally, the state of couple communication includes active communication behavior and negative communication behavior [22]. Thirdly, we make two questionnaires intended for men and women to collect some information. Here, a detailed interpretation of the questionnaires follows. The first part of the two questionnaires is the same, mainly including some demographic characteristics: age, BMI, life style (smoking status and exercise status), characters, educational status, occupational status, and residence. The NEO-PI-R was used to assess the personality of the couples [23]. The second part of the questionnaire intended for men is the 5 items of International Index for Erectile Function used to measure the sexual dysfunction of the men [24]. The third part of the questionnaire attended for the couples contains the Zung self-rating anxiety/depression scales [25, 26]. The reliability of these instruments (NEO-PI-R, the Zung self-rating anxiety/depression scales, and IIEF-5) was assessed with Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The internal consistencies of the NEO-PI-R, the Zung self-rating anxiety/depression scales, and IIEF-5 were 0.84, 0.80, 0.81, and 0.79, respectively.

According to NEO-PI-R, the personality was divided into introverts and extroverts [27, 28]. Anxiety and depression, as the two indices reflecting the degree of negative psychological impact, were assessed by the Zung self-rating anxiety/depression scales, in their Chinese version [29]. Each questionnaire contained 20 questions. After the questionnaire was completed, the total scores for the Zung self-rating anxiety/depression scales were combined, divided by 80, and then compared with a standard cutoff score for anxiety or depression. A standard cutoff of 0.5 was employed such that a score <0.5 indicated no anxiety/ depression and a score >0.5 confirmed anxiety/depression. The erectile dysfunction was measured by the Chinese version of IIEF-5 [30], which is a validated five-item version of the 15-item IIEF questionnaire. It contains five questions, each of which is graded on a scale from 0 to 5 points. An IIEF-5 score >22 indicated normal erectile function and <22 indicated ED.

2.3. Main Outcome Measures. The main outcome was collected through combining face-to-face interview with the questionnaires. First, demographic data of couples included age, BMI, life style (smoking status and exercise status), characters, educational status, occupational status, and residence. Second, the medical history and sexuality mainly contained the reason of treatment and the frequency of sexual intercourse. Third, the characteristics of ED included the duration of ED, the scores of IIEF-5, and the grades of EHS model evaluated by couples. Moreover, anxiety and depression of the couples were assessed by the Zung self-rating anxiety/depression scales, respectively.

2.4. Statistical Analysis. Data analyses were carried out with SPSS version 13.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the subjects. The descriptive data of subjects were expressed as the mean [+ or -] standard deviation or number (percentage) when appropriate. The independent t-test and chi-square test were used for intergroup comparisons. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between the factors of the couples and the different evaluation results of erectile hardness model. Odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated to examine the strength of association. For all tests, P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Characterization of the Two Groups. According to the evaluation results evaluated by couples through the erectile hardness model, we divided patients into difference group and no difference group, respectively. The difference group (GROUP 1) included couples which have inconsistent evaluation results from touching the erectile hardness model. On the contrary, the no difference group (GROUP 2) included couples which have consistent evaluation results from touching the erectile hardness model.

3.2. Baseline Characteristics. Overall, a total of 385 couples are enrolled in our study. They all meet our inclusion criteria and are willing to participate in our research. According to the information completed by the study couples, two groups are generated. Of the total sample, 62% (238/385) of the sample were divided into difference group (GROUP 1) and 38% (147/385) of the sample were divided into no difference group (GROUP 2).

The demographic characteristics including age, BMI, lifestyle, characters, educational status, occupational status, and residence of the patients and the corresponding female partners are shown in Table 1. The t test of two independent samples and the chi-square test were used for intergroup comparisons of the characteristics of the men and women, respectively. There was no statistical significance of the two groups no matter men or women.

3.3. Couples of the Difference Group. As shown in Table 2, the difference group not only consisted more couples but also report higher erectile hardness grade compared to the grade of their female partners (male > female: 147 (73.11%) vs. male < female: 64 (26.89%)).

3.4. Factors Associated with Different Erectile Hardness Evaluation in Couples with ED. As shown in Table 3, we comparatively analyzed the couples' sexual histories, the duration of ED, the frequency of sexual intercourse, communication state, and psychological burden. The significant differences were shown between difference group and no difference group with respect to duration of ED, frequency of sexual intercourse, the reasons of seeking treatment, communication state of the couples, and several psychological burdens from men and women.

As shown in Table 4, a logistic regression was conducted to assess whether the factors mentioned above could predict the evaluation difference. Through further correlation analysis, duration of ED > 16 months, seeking treatment from female, negative communication state, and depression from men were the factors associated with difference erectile hardness evaluation between couples.

3.5. Erectile Function of the Men in Two Groups. As shown in Table 5, the erectile function of the men was evaluated through the IIEF-5 by men and the erectile hardness model by the men and women. The scores of IIEF-5 in difference group and no difference group are 13.43 [+ or -] 5.75 and 16.82 [+ or -] 8.23, respectively. The average grades evaluated from men and women in difference group are 2.79 [+ or -] 0.85 and 2.45 [+ or -] 0.63, respectively. When compared with the no difference group, the men from difference group scored lower through IIEF-5. The results are the same as the method of the erectile hardness model. As mentioned above, the men from difference group scored lower through the erectile hardness model compared to their female partner.

4. Discussion

ED is a disease in which multiple factors are involved in the occurrence and the progression of it, and its etiology is complicated [31]. Among these factors, both husband and wife play an important role. In our clinical work, we find that as for men with erectile dysfunction, we need to not only evaluate the erectile function of the men and the related risk factors but also fully master how the relationship between husband and wife goes. Answers of these questions allow us to fully understand sexual cognition and the state of sexual communication of the two sides. When we treat men with ED only through drugs, we cannot restore these risk factors existing between couples which play important roles in the progress of the disease.

In our outpatient visit, we found that the husband and wife diverged on the evaluation of the male erectile function by the erectile function model when the couple visits us for ED together. The differences in sexual cognition and the lack of communication on sexual topics of couples were revealed through this simple phenomenon. This study was conducted to further explore the relevant factors affecting the evaluation results of couples. We concluded the factors that are closely related to the differences between the evaluation results of couples including the course of ED, the cause of treatment of ED patients, the communication status of couples, and the depression of men.

In this study, male patients in the difference group were reported a longer course of ED than the no difference group. ED has a physical, mental, and social impact on the quality of life of patients and their partners [6]. We think that the communication barrier between couples is prolonged as the duration of ED. For men, ED patients often show anxiety and depressive symptoms related to sexual performance. For women, this mental stress cannot be ignored. Changes in male sexual behavior can confuse his sexual partners and even make her generate some strange ideas, such as their spouse is losing interest with her [32]. The mental impact of ED on both men and women will gradually increase as the disease progresses, which will gradually undermine the sexual communication between the husband and wife. For women, male with ED also has a series of adverse effects on her sexual functions including sexual desire disorder, sexual excitement, orgasm disorder, and pain in sexual intercourse. A cross-sectional study conducted in Taiwan showed that women with ED partners had lower scores in FSFI's total score and field scores compared with women without ED partners [33]. Women continue to reduce sexual contact with patients because of these bad effects. Studies have also shown that when male patients developed ED, they also reduce the sexual life frequency of sexual partner to avoid embarrassing situation [34]. The decline in sexual frequency will get worse as the duration of ED prolongs. It will reduce the quality of sexual life of both parties, reduce communication between husband and wife, and undermine the harmonious relationship between husband and wife.

For men, they are more likely to refuse treatment than women for most ailments [35]. In China, influenced by traditional culture of conservative attitude towards sex, men are even more reluctant to admit their decline in sexual function when faced with sex-related issues such as ED. A clinical-based survey in China named Help-seeking behavior for erectile dysfunction found that many patients were clinically diagnosed with ED and might not realize that they had erectile problems at first [36]. For women, they are always able to feel small changes in sexual behavior during sexual intercourse earlier than men. Facing the embarrassed question of ED, the husband and wife have adopted two very different attitudes. This very different attitude led to assessment differences in the face of the evaluation model. This conclusion agrees with our findings. These different attitudes of couples in the face of sexual problems will affect the treatment of ED. This also reminds us that in the process of ED treatment, sexual knowledge education and consultation for couples which are lacking in different groups are of great significance.

Our research indicates that the state of communication between husband and wife affects the judgment on the penile hardness model. The ED problem is not only a male problem, but also a problem for couples. Culture defines the role of men and women, how they relate to each other, their cultural group, and the community [37]. During the diagnosis and treatment of ED, women play an important role in the provision of patient medical history and patient compliance. The women's understanding comes from the good communication between husband and wife and the correct understanding of sexual knowledge. Therefore, when the two sides communicate negatively, it will result in great resistance to the diagnosis and treatment of ED. In a study on the cessation of ED treatment, 9.3% of men pointed out that the relationship between husband and wife is the main reason for stopping drug treatment [38]. So, when there is negative communication between the couple, this will inevitably lead to errors in their knowledge of the disease. When facing the hardness evaluation model, this error will be magnified. The phenomenon also reminds us that when treating ED patients, in addition to the use of drugs, we must deal with the communication state of the couples.

Mental factors are closely related to ED. In the United States, mental problems or stress are important predictors of ED and the OR is 3.6 [39]. Anxiety and depression are both risk factors for ED and important neurological effects of ED on men. ED and depression are considered to be two-way effects, and the two conditions reinforce each other [40]. An estimated 25% of men with depressive symptoms may suffer from ED [41, 42]. Gradually, psychological disorders grew as the ED duration progressed. Not only the incidences but also the severities of anxiety and depression significantly rose with the duration of ED. Depression can reduce libido and aggravate the disease of ED [43]. In the meantime, unsatisfied sexual life can aggravate depression. When men are suffering from depression due to ED, their attitude toward ED is more evasive. The evasive attitude will be uncovered when faced with a penile erection model.

Our research inspiration is from a small phenomenon found in Andrology outpatient work: different results between couples in using models to assess male erectile hardness grade. This small difference seems to have nothing to do with the treatment of ED. In fact, through our research, we find that there are many deep problems hidden under this phenomenon. Through in-depth analysis, we summarize four factors that influence the outcome, the duration of the ED, the reasons for the visit, the state of communication between the spouses, and the mental factors. These related factors also suggest that ED destroys not only the male penile erection function but also the relationship between husband and wife. The drug only treats the erectile function of the male, and the better treatment is to restore the harmonious sexual life of the patient and his wife. In response to these factors, sexual counseling and sexual education and drug therapy can be combined to achieve better therapeutic results.

There are some limitations in our article. (a) We performed the correlation research on the questionnaires of erectile dysfunction (IIEF-5) and the EHS from men and women. (b) This study is a cross-sectional study. Later, we will conduct a cohort study to further follow up patients in different groups to compare the response and continuation to PDE5i. (c) At the same time, we also conduct further research on the sexual function of the female partners using the Female Sexual Function Index. (d) In the later stage, we will carry out relevant sexual knowledge education and sexual counseling and apply the research results to the treatment of clinical ED.

5. Conclusion

ED not only affects the male penile erectile function but also destroy the sexual relationship and communication on sexual topics between couples. In our study, duration of ED > 16 months, seeking treatment from females and negative communication state and negatively psychological burden (depression) from men were the pivotal factors for different judgment grades between the spouses. As for couples with these risk factors, we cannot focus only on the oral medication which only restores the penile erectile function. More importantly, we must combine the sexual counseling and sexual knowledge education with the drug treatment. When the two treatments are tightly integrated, not only the penile erection but also the gap of couples can be restored which is the best result of the ED treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2302348

Data Availability

Datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available and can be requested from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors' Contributions

Jingjing Gao, Yuyang Zhang, and Hu Li contributed equally to this work.

References

[1] M. Miner, M. T. Rosenberg, and J. Barkin, "Erectile dysfunction in primary care: a focus on cardiometabolic risk evaluation and stratification for future cardiovascular events," The Canadian Journal of Urology, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 25, 2014.

[2] K.-K. Chew, A. Bremner, B. Stuckey, C. Earle, and K. Jamrozik, "Is the relationship between cigarette smoking and male erectile dysfunction independent of cardiovascular disease? Findings from a population-based cross-sectional study," The Journal of Sexual Medicine, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 222-231, 2009.

[3] R. C. Rosen, W. A. Fisher, I. Eardley, C. Niederberger, A. Nadel, and M. Sand, "The multinational men's attitudes to life events and sexuality (MALES) study: I. Prevalence oSf erectile dysfunction and related health concerns in the general population," Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 607-617, 2004.

[4] W. Lo, S. Fu, C. H. Wong, and E. Chen, "Prevalence, correlates, attitude and treatment seeking of erectile dysfunction among type 2 diabetic Chinese men attending primary care outpatient clinics," Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 755-760, 2014.

[5] I. A. Ayta, J. B. McKinlay, and R. J. Krane, "The likely worldwide increase in erectile dysfunction between 1995 and 2025 and some possible policy consequences," BJU International, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 50-56, 1999.

[6] H. Li, T. Gao, and R. Wang, "The role of the sexual partner in managing erectile dysfunction," Nature Reviews Urology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 168-177, 2016.

[7] Y. Yang, Y. Song, Y. Lu, Y. Xu, L. Liu, and X. Liu, "Associations between erectile dysfunction and psychological disorders (depression and anxiety): a cross-sectional study in a Chinese population," Andrologia, vol. 51, no. 10, 2019.

[8] F. Hedon, "Anxiety and erectile dysfunction: a global approach to ED enhances results and quality of life," International Journal of Impotence Research, vol. 15, no. S2, pp. S16-S19, 2003.

[9] W. A. Fisher, R. C. Rosen, I. Eardley, M. Sand, and I. Goldstein, "Sexual experience of female partners of men with erectile dysfunction: the female experience of men's attitudes to life events and sexuality (FEMALES) study," The Journal of Sexual Medicine, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 675-684, 2005.

[10] S. E. Althof, "Quality of life and erectile dysfunction," Urology, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 803-810, 2002.

[11] J. Mulhall, "Sildenafil: a novel effective oral therapy for male erectile dysfunction," British Journal of Urology, vol. 79, no. 79, pp. 663-664, 1997.

[12] E. Christiansen, Sildenafil Multicentre Study Group, W. R. Guirguis, D. Cox, and I. H. Osterloh, "Long-term efficacy and safety of oral Viagra (sildenafil citrate) in men with erectile dysfunction and the effect of randomised treatment withdrawal," International Journal of Impotence Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 177-182, 2000.

[13] C. Ljunggren, H. Hedelin, K. Salomonsson, and P. Stroberg, "Giving patients with erectile dysfunction the opportunity to try all three available phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors contributes to better long-term treatment compliance," The Journal of Sexual Medicine, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 469-475, 2008.

[14] T. Klotz, M. Mathers, R. Klotz, and F. Sommer, "Why do patients with erectile dysfunction abandon effective therapy with sildenafil (Viagra)?" International Journal of Impotence Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2-4, 2005.

[15] H. Son, K. Park, S. W. Kim, and J. S. Paick, "Reasons for discontinuation of sildenafil citrate after successful restoration of erectile function," Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 117-120, 2004.

[16] B.-P. Jiann, C.-C. Yu, C.-C. Su, and J.-Y. Tsai, "Compliance of sildenafil treatment for erectile dysfunction and factors affecting it," International Journal of Impotence Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 146-149, 2006.

[17] A. Salonia, A. Gallina, G. Zanni et al., "Acceptance of and discontinuation rate from erectile dysfunction oral treatment in patients following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy," European Urology, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 564-570, 2007.

[18] M. Kubin, G. Wagner, and A. R. Fugl-Meyer, "Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction," International Journal of Impotence Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 63-71, 2003.

[19] S. E. Althof and M. Wieder, "Psychotherapy for erectile dysfunction: now more relevant than ever," Endocrine, vol. 23, no. 2-3, pp. 131-134, 2004.

[20] J. P. Mulhall, I. Goldstein, A. G. Bushmakin, J. C. Cappelleri, and K. Hvidsten, "Original research-outcomes assessment: validation of the erection hardness score," The Journal of Sexual Medicine, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1626-1634, 2007.

[21] I. Goldstein, T. F. Lue, H. Padma-Nathan, R. C. Rosen, W. D. Steers, and P. A. Wicker, "Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction," New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 338, no. 20, pp. 1397-1404, 1998.

[22] H. C. Williamsm, X. Y. Ju, T. N. Bradbury, B. R. Karnery, and X. Y. Fang, "Communication behavior and relationship satisfaction among American and Chinese newlywed couples," Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 308-315, 2012.

[23] P. T. Costa and R. R. McCrae, "Revised personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI)," Indian Streams Research Journal, vol. 2, 2012.

[24] R. Rosen, J. Cappelleri, M. Smith, J. Lipsky, and B. Pena, "Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction," International Journal of Impotence Research, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 319-326, 1999.

[25] W. W. K. Zung, "A rating instrument for anxiety disorders," Psychosomatics, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 371-379, 1971.

[26] W. W. K. Zung, "A self-rating depression scale," Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 63-70, 1965.

[27] H. J. Eysenck, "Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: the three major dimensions of personality," Journal of Personality, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 246-261, 1990.

[28] X. I. Chang and M. T. Zhong, "Comparison of reliability and validity between full form and short form of big five personality scale neuroticism scale," Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 453-456, 2017, in Chinese.

[29] M. Y. Zhang, Manual of Psychiatric Rating Scale, Hunan Science and Technology Press, Changsha, Chaina, 1993, in Chinese.

[30] Y. F. Huang and H. J. Li, Practical Andrology, Science Press, Beijing, China, 2009, in Chinese.

[31] G. M. Irwin, "Erectile dysfunction," Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, vol. 46, pp. 249-255, 2019.

[32] F. A. Yafi, L. Jenkins, M. Albersen et al., "Erectile dysfunction," Nature Reviewe Disease Primers, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2016.

[33] B. P. Jiann, C. C. Su, and J. Y. Tsai, "Is female sexual function related to the male partners' erectile function?" The Journal of Sexual Medicine, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 420-429, 2013.

[34] R. Shabsigh, L. T. Klein, S. Seidman, S. A. Kaplan, B. J. Lehrhoff, and J. S. Ritter, "Increased incidence of depressive symptoms in men with erectile dysfunction," Urology, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 848-852, 1998.

[35] P. M. Galdas, F. Cheater, and P. Marshall, "Men and health help-seeking behaviour: literature review," Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 616-623, 2005.

[36] K. Zhang, W. Yu, Z.-J. He, and J. Jin, "Help-seeking behavior for erectile dysfunction: a clinic-based survey in China," Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 131-135, 2014.

[37] C. K. H. Christopher, P. Singam, G. E. Hong, and Z. M. Zainuddin, "Male sexual dysfunction in Asia," Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 537-542, 2011.

[38] A. A. Carvalheira, N. M. Pereira, J. Maroco, and V. Forjaz, "Dropout in the treatment of erectile dysfunction with PDE5: a study on predictors and a qualitative analysis of reasons for discontinuation," The Journal of Sexual Medicine, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 2361-2369, 2012.

[39] E. O. Laumann, A. Paik, and R. C. Rosen, "Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors," The Journal of American Medical Association, vol. 281, no. 6, pp. 537-544, 1999.

[40] A. B. Araujo, R. Durante, H. A. Feldman, I. Goldstein, and J. B. McKinlay, "The relationship between depressive symptoms and male erectile dysfunction: cross-sectional results from the Massachusetts male aging study," Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 458-465, 1998.

[41] S. N. Seidman and S. P. Roose, "The relationship between depression and erectile dysfunction," Current Psychiatry Reports, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 201-205, 2000.

[42] K. Williams and M. F. Reynolds, "Sexual dysfunction in major depression," CNS Spectrums, vol. 11, no. S9, pp. 19-23, 2006.

[43] A. W. Meisler and M. P. Carey, "Depressed affect and male sexual arousal," Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 541-554, 1991.

Jingjing Gao [ID], Yuyang Zhang, Hu Li, Pan Gao, and Xiansheng Zhang [ID]

The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui Province, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Xiansheng Zhang; xiansheng-zhang@163.com

Received 8 September 2019; Revised 12 December 2019; Accepted 16 January 2020; Published 10 February 2020

Academic Editor: Luisa Brussino

Caption: Figure 1: Evaluation model of erectile hardness (made by the Pfizer Inc.).
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of couples with ED
complaint in difference and no difference groups.

                           Difference group (n = 238)

                                   Man

Age (years)                38.29 [+ or -] 10.73
BMI (kg/m2)                24.58 [+ or -] 2.25
Lifestyle (n%)
  Smoking                          154            64.71%
  Exercise                          85            35.71%
Characters (n%)
  Introversion                     165            69.33%
  Extroversion                      73            30.67%
Educational status (n%)
  High school or less              143            60.08%
  University graduate               95            39.92%
Occupational status (n%)
  Student                           66            27.73%
  Unemployed                       139            58.40%
  Employed                          33            13.87%
Resident (n%)
  Urban                             94            39.50%
  Rural                            144            60.50%

                           Difference group (n = 238)

                             Female partner

Age (years)                36.37 [+ or -] 9.25
BMI (kg/m2)                22.09 [+ or -] 4.33
Lifestyle (n%)
  Smoking                          10            4.20%
  Exercise                         47            19.75%
Characters (n%)
  Introversion                     146           61.34%
  Extroversion                     92            38.66%
Educational status (n%)
  High school or less              180           75.63%
  University graduate              58            24.37%
Occupational status (n%)
  Student                          116           48.74%
  Unemployed                       103           43.28%
  Employed                         19            7.98%
Resident (n%)
  Urban                            145           60.92%
  Rural                            93            39.08%

                           No difference group (n = 147)

                                   Man

Age (years)                37.80 [+ or -] 9.47
BMI (kg/m2)                23.67 [+ or -] 3.06
Lifestyle (n%)
  Smoking                          90            61.22%
  Exercise                         45            30.61%
Characters (n%)
  Introversion                     74            50.34%
  Extroversion                     73            49.66%
Educational status (n%)
  High school or less            58.50%            90
  University graduate            41.50%            57
Occupational status (n%)
  Student                        27.89%            33
  Unemployed                     61.90%            96
  Employed                       10.20%            18
Resident (n%)
  Urban                            52            35.37%
  Rural                            95            64.63%

                           No difference group (n = 147)

                              Female partner

Age (years)                34.55 [+ or -] 11.74
BMI (kg/m2)                22.21 [+ or -] 3.79
Lifestyle (n%)
  Smoking                           11            7.48%
  Exercise                          48            32.65%
Characters (n%)
  Introversion                      70            47.62%
  Extroversion                      77            52.38%
Educational status (n%)
  High school or less             61.22%          58.50%
  University graduate             38.78%          41.50%
Occupational status (n%)
  Student                         22.45%          27.89%
  Unemployed                      65.31%          61.90%
  Employed                        12.24%          10.20%
Resident (n%)
  Urban                             44            29.93%
  Rural                            103            70.07%

ED = erectile dysfunction; difference group = group including
couples with group = group including couples with different
evaluation results of the erectile hardness model; no difference no
different evaluation results of the erectile hardness model; BMI =
body mass index.

Table 2: Comparison of erectile hardness evaluated by the
erectile function model from men and female partner.

                                                  N    % for their
                                                         groups

Difference      Evaluation grade male > female   174      73.11
group           Evaluation grade male < female   64       26.89

No difference   Evaluation grade male = female   147       100
group

                                                 % for all
                                                 subjects

Difference      Evaluation grade male > female     45.19
group           Evaluation grade male < female     16.62

No difference   Evaluation grade male = female     38.18
group

Difference group = group including couples with different
evaluation results of the erectile hardness model; no difference
group = group including couples with no different evaluation
results of the erectile hardness model; evaluation grade = grade
evaluated by men and women, respectively, through the erectile
hardness model.

Table 3: Associated factors for different erectile hardness
evaluation in couples with ED.

                                               Different group
                                                  (n = 238)

Duration of ED (months)                      16.25 [+ or -] 10.74
Duration of relationships (years)             9.27 [+ or -] 4.12
Frequency of sexual intercourse (times)       3.29 [+ or -] 2.25
The main reason for treatment (%)
From male                                    106            44.54%
From female partner                          132            55.46%
The state of couple communication (%)
  Active                                      92            38.66%
  Negative                                   146            61.34%
Psychological burden (%)
  Anxiety from men                            43            18.07%
  Anxiety from female partner                 23            9.66%
  Depression from men                         30            12.61%
  Depression from female partner              13            5.46%

                                               No different group
                                               (n = 147)

Duration of ED (months)                       13.25 [+ or -] 9.84
Duration of relationships (years)              9.05 [+ or -] 4.23
Frequency of sexual intercourse (times)        5.77 [+ or -] 3.13
The main reason for treatment (%)
From male                                     96            65.31%
From female partner                           51            34.69%
The state of couple communication (%)
  Active                                      77            52.38%
  Negative                                    70            47.62%
Psychological burden (%)
  Anxiety from men                            19            12.93%
  Anxiety from female partner                 13            8.84%
  Depression from men                         11            7.48%
  Depression from female partner               8            5.44%

                                          P value

Duration of ED (months)                   <0.001
Duration of relationships (years)            *
Frequency of sexual intercourse (times)   <0.001
The main reason for treatment (%)         <0.001
From male                                    *
From female partner                          *
The state of couple communication (%)     <0.001
  Active                                     *
  Negative                                   *
Psychological burden (%)                     *
  Anxiety from men                        <0.001
  Anxiety from female partner                *
  Depression from men                     <0.001
  Depression from female partner             *

Note. Values were considered statistically significant when P < 0.05;
statistical method: ANOVA--analysis of variance; X--chi-square test;
*P > 0.05.

Table 4: Multiple logistic regression analysis of risk factors for
different erectile hardness evaluations in couples with ED.

                                 OR     95% CI     P value

Duration of ED > 16 months      3.35   1.56-7.72   <0.001
The main reason for treatment   2.18   1.96-5.23   <0.001
  from female partner
Negative state of couple        3.02   2.11-6.94   <0.001
  communication
Depression from men             2.07   1.15-4.29   <0.001

ED = erectile dysfunction, OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval.

Table 5: Erectile function of the men in two groups evaluated by
IIEF-5 and Erectile Hardness Model.

               Difference group (n = 238)

                  Men                  Female
                                      partner
IIEF-5   13.43 [+ or -] 5.75 *           --
EHS      2.79 [+ or -] 0.85 *#   2.45 [+ or -] 0.63

                  No difference group
                       (n = 147)

                 Men                 Female
                                    partner
IIEF-5   16.82 [+ or -] 8.23           --
EHS      3.02 [+ or -] 0.45    3.02 [+ or -] 0.45

* Compared with the no difference group, significant differences
were found in the difference group. #Compared with female partner,
significant dif- ferences were found in men's difference group.
Difference group = group including couples with different
evaluation results of the erectile hardness model; no difference
group = group including couples with no different evaluation
results of the erectile hardness model; IIEF-5: the 5-item version
of the International Index of Erectile Function; EHS: grade
evaluated by the model of erectile hardness.
COPYRIGHT 2020 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2020 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Gao, Jingjing; Zhang, Yuyang; Li, Hu; Gao, Pan; Zhang, Xiansheng
Publication:BioMed Research International
Article Type:Survey
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Mar 1, 2020
Words:6465
Previous Article:Fabrication and Application of a 3D-Printed Poly-[epsilon]-Caprolactone Cage Scaffold for Bone Tissue Engineering.
Next Article:Silencing of ELK3 Induces S-M Phase Arrest and Apoptosis and Upregulates SERPINE1 Expression Reducing Migration in Prostate Cancer Cells.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters