CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 301Sexual function and dysfunction studiesSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologySex work and related issues

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What is the ‘true’ prevalence of female sexual dysfunctions and does the way we assess these conditions have an impact?

Hayes, Richard D., Dennerstein, Lorraine, Bennett, Catherine M., Fairley, Christopher K.·2008·The Journal of Sexual Medicine
DOI 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00768.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A wide range of prevalence estimates of female sexual dysfunctions (FSD) have been reported. AIM: Compare instruments used to assess FSD to determine if differences between instruments contribute to variation in reported prevalence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sexual Function Questionnaire combined with Female Sexual Distress Scale (SFQ-FSDS) was our gold standard, validated instrument for assessing FSD. Alternatives were SFQ alone and two sets of simple questions adapted from Laumann et al. 1994. Methods. A postal survey was administered to a random sample of 356 Australian women aged 20 to 70 years. RESULTS: When assessed by SFQ-FSDS, prevalence estimates (95% confidence intervals) of hypoactive sexual desire disorder, sexual arousal disorder (lubrication), orgasmic disorder, and dyspareunia were 16% (12% to 20%), 7% (5% to 11%), 8% (6% to 12%), and 1% (0.5% to 3%), respectively. Prevalence estimates varied across alternative instruments for these disorders: 32% to 58%, 16% to 32%, 16% to 33%, and 3% to 23%, respectively. Compared with SFQ-FSDS alternative instruments produced higher estimates of desire, arousal and orgasm disorders and displayed a range of sensitivities (0.25 to 1.0), specificities (0.48 to 0.99), positive predictive values (0.01 to 0.56), and negative predictive values (0.95 to 1.0) across the disorders investigated. Kappa statistics comparing SFQ-FSDS and alternative instruments ranged from 0 to 0.71 but were predominantly 0.44 or less. Changing recall from previous month to 1 month or more in the previous year produced higher estimates for all disorders investigated. Including sexual distress produced lower estimates for desire, arousal, and orgasm disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence estimates of FSD varied substantially across instruments. Relatively low positive predictive values and kappa statistics combined with a broad range of sensitivities and specificities indicated that different instruments identified different subgroups. Consequently, the instruments researchers choose when assessing FSD may affect prevalence estimates and risk factors they report.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00768.x

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 39 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 301

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hayes, R. D., Dennerstein, L., Bennett, C. M., & Fairley, C. K.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Hayes, Richard D.
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2008-04-01
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
777-787
ISSN
  • 1743-6095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-6109
DOI
10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00768.x
OpenAlex
W1549619776
Cited by
301
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 23
FWCI
21.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
Locations
  • The Journal of Sexual Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • VicHealth
  • Alfred Hospital
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sex work and related issues
Keywords
female sexual dysfunction, prevalence, Sexual Function Questionnaire, Female Sexual Distress Scale, assessment validity, hypoactive sexual desire disorder, sexual arousal disorders, orgasm disorders, dyspareunia, sexual distress, recall period, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Australia, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Self-Assessment, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Women's Health, Sexual Dysfunctions, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review