Effectiveness of a structured sexual rehabilitation programme following stroke: A randomized controlled trial

25Citations
Citations of this article
134Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Sexual activity is an integral part of life; it is important to address sexual health after stroke, but this is often poorly done. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of a structured sexual rehabilitation programme compared with written information alone regarding sexual and psychological functioning (anxiety, depression, stress), functional independence and quality of life in an Australian stroke cohort. Methods: A total of 68 participants were randomized to a structured sexual rehabilitation programme (treatment group; n = 35) or to written information alone (control group; n = 33). Outcome measures included: Sexual Functioning Questionnaire Short Form; Depression, Anxiety Stress Scale; Functional Independence Measure, and Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 Generic. Assessments were performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6 months after the intervention. Participant's preferences regarding how they would like to receive information, who from, and how frequently, were collected at baseline. Results: There was no difference between groups for any outcome measures. Half of the participants (51%) wished to receive information and were divided equally into preferring written information vs face-to-face counselling, with the majority (54%) preferring information after discharge from an inpatient setting. Conclusion: Provision of written information alone appears to be as effective as a 30-min individualized sexual rehabilitation programme in an inpatient setting. Further research is needed regarding longer term outcomes and outpatient settings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ng, L., Sansom, J., Zhang, N., Amatya, B., & Khan, F. (2017). Effectiveness of a structured sexual rehabilitation programme following stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 49(4), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2219

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free