Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:01:33.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Female sexual function varies over time and is dependent on partner-specific factors: a population-based longitudinal analysis of six sexual function domains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2016

A. Gunst ,
D. Ventus ,
A. Kärnä ,
P. Salo  and
P. Jern
A. Gunst*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
D. Ventus
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
A. Kärnä
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, Turku, Finland
P. Salo
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
P. Jern
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Department of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
*
*Address for correspondence: A. Gunst, Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Assistentinkatu 7, 20014 Turku, Finland. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Most studies examining female sexual functions (FSFs) have used cross-sectional designs, not allowing for studying temporal stability and possible relationships between different FSFs over time. Our aim was to study these relationships using a longitudinal approach.

Method

The study sample consisted of 2173 Finnish women from two large-scale, population-based data collections 7 years apart. The Female Sexual Function Index was used. Analyses were further conducted separately for women in different relationship constellations.

Results

Standardized autoregressive paths ranged from 0.136 (sexual satisfaction) to 0.447 (orgasm function) in the full sample, suggesting that most of the variance in FSF was explained by something other than previous function. Orgasm, desire and satisfaction were the strongest predictors of other functions in the full sample and for women in the same relationship at both time points (higher orgasm function predicted higher function in other domains; greater sexual desire and satisfaction predicted lower function in other domains), however, with small effects sizes. For single women, orgasm function and sexual desire were the only significant autoregressive paths. Significant unidirectional cross-domain paths were found for women in the same relationship at both time points. One significant cross-domain path, not confirmed as unidirectional, was found for single women.

Conclusions

FSFs varied considerably over 7 years and relationship status was of importance when assessing temporal stability and cross-domain effects. Our results advocate tailored psychobehavioural treatment interventions for female sexual dysfunctions that take partner-specific factors into account.

Keywords

Female sexual functionlongitudinal studiespopulation studiesrelationshipstemporal stability
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , January 2017 , pp. 341 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avis, NE, Brockwell, S, Randolph, JF Jr., Shunhua, S, Cain, VS, Greendale, GA (2009). Longitudinal changes in sexual functioning as women transition through menopause: results from the study of transition through menopause: results from the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Menopause 16, 442–452.Google Scholar
Burri, A, Greven, C, Leupin, M, Spector, T, Rahman, Q (2012). A multivariate twin study of female sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sexual Medicine 9, 2671–2681.Google Scholar
Burri, A, Hilpert, P, Spector, T (2015). Longitudinal evaluation of sexual function in a cohort of pre- and postmenopausal women. Journal of Sexual Medicine 12, 1427–1435.Google Scholar
Chen, FF (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14, 464–504.Google Scholar
Cheung, GW, Rensvold, RB (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9, 233–255.Google Scholar
Dennerstein, L, Hayes, RD (2005). Confronting the challenges: epidemiological study of female sexual dysfunction and the menopause. Journal of Sexual Medicine 2, 118–132.Google Scholar
Dennerstein, L, Guthrie, JR, Hayes, RD, DeRogatis, LR, Lehert, P (2008). Sexual function, dysfunction, and sexual distress in a prospective, population-based sample of mid-aged, Australian-born women. Journal of Sexual Medicine 5, 2291–2299.Google Scholar
Frühauf, S, Gerger, H, Schmidt, HM, Munder, T, Barth, J (2013). Efficacy of psychological interventions for sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior 42, 915–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fugl-Meyer, AR, Fugl-Meyer, KS (1999). Sexual disabilities, problems and satisfaction in 18–74 year old Swedes. Scandinavian Journal of Sexology 2, 79–105.Google Scholar
Hällström, T, Samuelsson, S (1990). Changes in women's sexual desire in middle life: the longitudinal study of women in Gothenburg. Archives of Sexual Behavior 19, 259–268.Google Scholar
Howard, JR, O'Neill, S, Travers, C (2006). Factors affecting sexuality in older Australian women: sexual interest, sexual arousal, relationships and sexual distress in older Australian women. Climacteric 9, 355–367.Google Scholar
Johansson, A, Jern, P, Santtila, P, von der Pahlen, B, Eriksson, E, Westberg, L, Nyman, H, Pensar, J, Corander, J, Sandnabba, NK (2013). The Genetics of Sexuality and Aggression (GSA) twin samples in Finland. Twin Research and Human Genetics 16, 150–156.Google Scholar
Klussmann, D (2002). Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. Archives of Sexual Behavior 31, 275–287.Google Scholar
Koster, A, Garde, K (1993). Sexual desire and menopausal development. A prospective study of Danish women born in 1936. Maturitas 8, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, EO, Paik, A, Rosen, RC (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors. Journal of the American Medical Association 281, 537–544.Google Scholar
Little, TD (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford: New York.Google Scholar
McCool, ME, Zuelke, A, Theurich, MA, Knuettel, H, Ricci, C, Apfelbacher, C (2016). Prevalence of female sexual dysfunction among premenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Sexual Medicine Reviews 4, 197–212.Google Scholar
Meyer-Bahlburg, HF, Dolezal, C (2007). The Female Sexual Function Index: a methodological critique and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 33, 217–224.Google Scholar
Muthén, LK, Muthén, BO (1998–2012). Mplus User's Guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Naeinian, MR, Shaeiri, MR, Hosseini, FS (2011). General health and quality of life in patients with sexual dysfunctions. Urology Journal 8, 127–131.Google Scholar
Nappi, RE, Lachowsky, M (2009). Menopause and sexuality: prevalence of symptoms and impact on quality of life. Maturitas 63, 138–141.Google Scholar
Pakpour, AH, Yekaninejad, MS, Pallich, G, Burri, A (2015). Using ecological momentary assessment to investigate short-term variations in sexual functioning in a sample of peri-menopausal women from Iran. PLOS ONE 10, e0117299.Google Scholar
Rosen, R, Brown, C, Heiman, J, Leiblum, S, Meston, C, Shabsigh, R, Ferguson, D, D'Agostino, R Jr. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 26, 191–208.Google Scholar
Satorra, A, Bentler, PM (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 66, 507–514.Google Scholar
te Velde, ER, Dorland, M, Broekmans, FJ (1998). Age at menopause as a marker of reproductive ageing. Maturitas 30, 119–125.Google Scholar
Wiegel, M, Meston, C, Rosen, R (2005). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): cross-validation and development of clinical cutoff scores. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 31, 1–20.Google Scholar
Witting, K (2008). Classification, Comorbidity, Heredity, and Risk Factors of Female Sexual Dysfunctions. Åbo Akademi University: Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
Witting, K, Santtila, P, Jern, P, Varjonen, M, Wager, I, Höglund, M, Johansson, A, Vikström, N, Sandnabba, NK (2008 a). Evaluation of the Female Sexual Function Index in a population based sample from Finland. Archives of Sexual Behaviors 37, 912–924.Google Scholar
Witting, K, Santtila, P, Rijsdijk, F, Varjonen, M, Jern, P, Johansson, A, von der Pahlen, B, Alanko, K, Sandnabba, NK (2009). Correlated genetic and non-shared environmental influences account for the co-morbidity between female sexual dysfunctions. Psychological Medicine 39, 115–127.Google Scholar
Witting, K, Santtila, P, Varjonen, M, Jern, P, Johansson, A, von der Pahlen, B, Sandnabba, K (2008 b). Female sexual dysfunction, sexual distress, and compatibility with partner. Journal of Sexual Medicine 5, 2587–2599.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gunst supplementary material

Gunst supplementary material 1

Download Gunst supplementary material(File)
File 306.9 KB