Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background Unlike the other 2 criteria for diagnosing premature ejaculation (PE), namely lack of ejaculatory control and short ejaculation latency (EL), the role of bother/distress has received only minimal consideration and investigation. Aim The specific aim was to determine both why distress is included in the PE diagnosis and whether such inclusion is advantageous to achieving better diagnostic outcomes. To this end, the review explored the historical and theoretical underpinnings of the inclusion of “bother/ distress” in the diagnosis of PE, with reference to the larger role that distress has played in the diagnosis of mental disorders, in an attempt to understand the utility (or lack thereof) of this construct in making a PE diagnosis. Methods We reviewed the role of bother/distress across current professional definitions for PE and then expanded this discussion to include the role of distress in other sexual dysfunctions. We then included a brief historical perspective regarding the role that distress has played in the diagnosis of PE. This discussion is followed by a deeper look at 2 nosological systems, namely DSM and ICD, to allow perspective on the inclusion of the bother/distress construct in the diagnosis of mental and behavioral disorders, including the assumptions/arguments put forward to include or exclude bother/distress as an important criterion underlying various professional assumptions. Outcome Determination of the value and/or need of including bother/distress as a necessary criterion for the diagnosis of PE. Results Based on the research literature, bother/distress does not appear to be as critical for a PE diagnosis as either the lack of ejaculatory control or short EL. It is the weakest of the differences among men with and without PE, and recent evidence suggests that its inclusion is generally redundant with the severity of the 2 other criteria for PE, ejaculatory control and EL. Clinical Translation Bother/distress appears to serve little purpose in the diagnosis of PE yet its assessment may be important for the treatment strategy and for assessing treatment effectiveness. Strengths and Limitations This review did not provide a critical analysis of the literature regarding the role of bother/distress in PE, but rather focused on its potential value in understanding and diagnosing PE. Conclusion Although bother/distress appears to add little to the improvement of accuracy for a PE diagnosis, understanding and assessing the man's or couple's experience of distress has important implications for the treatment strategy and focus, as well as for assessing treatment success.
Background Unlike the other 2 criteria for diagnosing premature ejaculation (PE), namely lack of ejaculatory control and short ejaculation latency (EL), the role of bother/distress has received only minimal consideration and investigation. Aim The specific aim was to determine both why distress is included in the PE diagnosis and whether such inclusion is advantageous to achieving better diagnostic outcomes. To this end, the review explored the historical and theoretical underpinnings of the inclusion of “bother/ distress” in the diagnosis of PE, with reference to the larger role that distress has played in the diagnosis of mental disorders, in an attempt to understand the utility (or lack thereof) of this construct in making a PE diagnosis. Methods We reviewed the role of bother/distress across current professional definitions for PE and then expanded this discussion to include the role of distress in other sexual dysfunctions. We then included a brief historical perspective regarding the role that distress has played in the diagnosis of PE. This discussion is followed by a deeper look at 2 nosological systems, namely DSM and ICD, to allow perspective on the inclusion of the bother/distress construct in the diagnosis of mental and behavioral disorders, including the assumptions/arguments put forward to include or exclude bother/distress as an important criterion underlying various professional assumptions. Outcome Determination of the value and/or need of including bother/distress as a necessary criterion for the diagnosis of PE. Results Based on the research literature, bother/distress does not appear to be as critical for a PE diagnosis as either the lack of ejaculatory control or short EL. It is the weakest of the differences among men with and without PE, and recent evidence suggests that its inclusion is generally redundant with the severity of the 2 other criteria for PE, ejaculatory control and EL. Clinical Translation Bother/distress appears to serve little purpose in the diagnosis of PE yet its assessment may be important for the treatment strategy and for assessing treatment effectiveness. Strengths and Limitations This review did not provide a critical analysis of the literature regarding the role of bother/distress in PE, but rather focused on its potential value in understanding and diagnosing PE. Conclusion Although bother/distress appears to add little to the improvement of accuracy for a PE diagnosis, understanding and assessing the man's or couple's experience of distress has important implications for the treatment strategy and focus, as well as for assessing treatment success.
No abstract
Background Little is known regarding the demographic, sexual, and relationship characteristics of men with symptoms of delayed ejaculation (DE). Aim To identify differences between men with and without DE symptomology to validate face-valid diagnostic criteria and to identify various functional correlates of DE. Methods A total of 2679 men meeting inclusion criteria were partitioned into groups with and without DE symptomology on the basis of their self-reported “difficulty reaching ejaculation/orgasm during partnered sex.” Men were then compared on a broad array of demographic and relationship variables, as well as sexual response variables assessed during partnered sex and masturbation. Outcomes Outcomes included the identified differences between men with and without DE symptomology. Results Men with DE—whether having comorbid erectile dysfunction or not—differed from men without DE on 5 face-valid variables related to previously proposed diagnostic criteria for DE, including ones related to ejaculation latency (P < .001); self-efficacy related to reaching ejaculation, as assessed by the percentage of episodes reaching ejaculation during partnered sex (P < .001); and negative consequences of the impairment, including “bother/distress” and (lack of) “orgasmic pleasure/sexual satisfaction” (P < .001). All such differences were associated with medium to large effect sizes. In addition, men showed differences on a number of functional correlates of DE, including anxiety, relationship satisfaction, frequency of partnered sex and masturbation, and level of symptomology during partnered sex vs masturbation (P < .001). Clinical Implications Face-valid criteria for the diagnosis of DE were statistically verified, and functional correlates of DE relevant to guiding and focusing treatment were identified. Strengths and Limitations In this first comprehensive analysis of its kind, we have demonstrated widespread differences on sexual and relationship variables relevant to the diagnosis of DE and to its functional correlates between men with and without DE symptomology during partnered sex. Limitations include participant recruitment through social media, which likely biased the sample; the use of estimated rather than clocked ejaculation latencies; and the fact that differences between men with acquired and lifelong DE were not investigated. Conclusion This well-powered multinational study provides strong empirical support for several face-valid measures for the diagnosis of DE, with a number of explanatory and control covariates that may help shed light on the lived experiences of men with DE and suggest focus areas for treatment. Whether or not the DE men had comorbid erectile dysfunction had little impact on the differences with men having normal ejaculatory functioning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.