Does Bother/Distress Contribute to the Diagnosis of Premature Ejaculation?. Issue 5 (8th August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rowland, David L.; McNabney, Sean M.; Hevesi, Krisztina
• Is Part Of: Sexual medicine. Volume 10:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 100548
• Page End: 100548
• Publication Date: 2022-08-08
• Subjects: Premature Ejaculation -- Ejaculatory Control -- Ejaculation Latency -- Bother/Distress -- Diagnosis; Sexual disorders -- Periodicals; Sexual health -- Periodicals; 616.69005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.esxm.2022.100548
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2050-1161

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The role of bother/distress in the diagnosis of premature ejaculation (PE) has received minimal investigation compared with the 2 other diagnostic criteria, ejaculatory control and ejaculatory latency (EL). Aim: This study assessed (i) the added variance explained by bother/distress to the diagnostic accuracy of PE and (ii) determined its overall contribution to a PE diagnosis. Methods: The 3 diagnostic criteria for PE were assessed in 2, 589 men (mean age = 38.2 years, SD = 13.5) in order to determine the contribution of each factor to a dysfunctional diagnosis. A series of regression and discriminant analyses were used to assess the value of bother/distress in explaining ejaculatory control and in predicting accuracy of PE group status. Commonality analysis was used to determine the relative contribution of each of these factors to the diagnosis of PE. Main Outcome Measure: The major outcome was the quantified contribution of "bother/distress" to a PE diagnosis. Results: Bother/distress accounted for about 3–4% of the variation in ejaculatory control and added only minimally to the prediction accuracy of PE group status (no, probable, definite PE). Commonality analysis indicated that bother/distress comprised about 3.6% of the unique explained variation in the PE diagnosis, compared with ejaculatory control and EL which contributed 54.5% and 26.7%, respectively. Common variance among factors contributed the remaining 15.5% to the PE diagnosis. Clinical Translation: Bother/distress contributes least to the determination of a PE diagnosis. Its contribution is largely redundant with the unique and combined contributions of ejaculatory control and EL. Strengths and Limitations: Using a well-powered and multivariate analysis, this study parsed out the relative contributions of the 3 diagnostic criteria to a PE diagnosis. The study is limited by its use of estimated EL, a single item assessment of bother/distress, and the lack of differentiation of PE subtypes, lifelong and acquired. Conclusion: Bother/distress contributes minimally to the PE diagnosis, yet its assessment may be key to understanding the experiences of the patient/couple and to developing an effective treatment strategy.