背景:早泄(PE)患者通常对其性行为感到担忧和困扰。因此,与没有PE的患者相比,他们可能更愿意利用不应期采用性应对策略,以改善不满意的性交。
目的:本研究旨在验证PE患者在日常性活动中的性应对策略。
方法:我们纳入了PE患者和非PE患者,并通过详细的访谈和问卷调查分析了他们的性行为和态度。
结果:主要结局是观察阴道内射精潜伏期时间,早泄诊断工具评分,和性频率,态度,和行为日志。
结果:共纳入182例年轻PE患者(年龄31.2±6.2岁)和92例无PE患者(年龄30.7±5.1岁)。在过去的4周内,共有53.3%的PE患者与17.4%的无PE患者报告在一天内进行了多次性交。参与多次性交的PE患者在第二次尝试中表现出更好的表现,但与没有PE的个体相比表现不佳。PE与PE与无PE个体的第一次尝试与第二次尝试的分数如下:阴道内射精潜伏期,2.4±1.6vs4.8±5.7vs9.9±9.4(P<.001);早泄诊断工具,14.9±3.1vs12.7±4.8vs5.2±2.5(P<.001);满意度,2.9±1.0vs3.1±0.8vs3.7±1.4(P<.001)。共有57.1%的患者对性前手淫持否定态度,由于性欲下降(21.2%)等原因,认为手淫是有害的(17.6%),对勃起功能的担忧(15.7%),疲劳(9.8%),和其他混合原因(35.3%)。
结论:在一天内进行多次性交课程在年轻的PE人群中更为常见,使用性前手淫作为应对策略在PE患者中并不普遍适用。
■这是第一项探索PE患者与无PE患者相比的症状应对策略的研究。然而,结论不能推广到整个男性人口。
结论:PE患者,与没有体育的人相比,更倾向于在一次性行为中进行多次性交,可能是为了弥补他们第一次不满意的性接触。此外,这里研究的大多数PE患者对使用性前手淫作为症状的应对策略持否定态度。
BACKGROUND: Patients with premature ejaculation (PE) are often concerned and distressed about their sexual performance. Hence, they may be more willing to exploit their refractory period to employ sexual coping strategies in order to improve their unsatisfactory sexual intercourse compared with patients without PE.
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to verify the sexual coping strategies of patients with PE in the daily sexual activities.
METHODS: We included both patients with PE and individuals without PE and analyzed their sexual behaviors and attitudes by means of detailed interviews and questionnaires.
RESULTS: The main outcomes were perceived intravaginal ejaculatory latency time recording, Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool score, and sexual frequency, attitudes, and behavior log.
RESULTS: A total of 182 young patients with PE (age 31.2 ± 6.2 years) and 92 individuals without PE (age 30.7 ± 5.1 years) were included in the study. A total of 53.3% of patients with PE vs 17.4% of individuals without PE reported engaging in multiple sexual intercourse sessions within a single day in the past 4 weeks. PE patients who engaged in multiple intercourse sessions displayed better performance during the second attempt but performed poorly compared with individuals without PE. Scores for the first attempt in PE vs second attempt in individuals with PE vs without PE were the following: intravaginal ejaculatory latency time, 2.4 ± 1.6 vs 4.8 ± 5.7 vs 9.9 ± 9.4 (P < .001); Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool, 14.9 ± 3.1 vs 12.7 ± 4.8 vs 5.2 ± 2.5 (P < .001); satisfaction, 2.9 ± 1.0 vs 3.1 ± 0.8 vs 3.7 ± 1.4 (P < .001). A total of 57.1% of patients held a negative attitude toward precoital masturbation, for reasons such as a reduced sexual desire (21.2%), the belief that masturbation is harmful (17.6%), concerns about erectile function (15.7%), fatigue (9.8%), and other mixed reasons (35.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: Engaging in multiple intercourse sessions within a day is more common among the young PE population, and using precoital masturbation as a coping strategy is not universally applicable among patients with PE.
UNASSIGNED: This is the first study to explore symptom-coping strategies in patients with PE compared with individuals without PE. However, the conclusions cannot be generalized to the entire male population.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PE, compared with individuals without PE, are more inclined to engage in multiple sexual intercourse sessions within a single sexual session, likely in an attempt to compensate for their first unsatisfactory sexual encounter. Moreover, the majority of patients with PE here studied hold a negative attitude toward using precoital masturbation as a coping strategy for symptoms.