Matthew Ziegelmann, Mihai Dumbrava, Amanda Seyer, Tobias Köhler, Sevann Helo, C Scott Collins
{"title":"Assessing Attitudes and Confidence in Managing Erectile Dysfunction Among Urology, Internal Medicine, and Family Medicine Providers.","authors":"Matthew Ziegelmann, Mihai Dumbrava, Amanda Seyer, Tobias Köhler, Sevann Helo, C Scott Collins","doi":"10.1016/j.urology.2024.09.048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess and contrast attitudes and confidence regarding erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment among urologists (GU) and primary care providers (PCPs), identifying areas for collaboration, practice improvement, and additional training to enhance men's healthcare (MH) quality and access.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymous survey with 25 questions on ED treatment, rated on a 5-point Likert scale, was conducted among our institution's providers in GU, internal medicine (IM), and family medicine (FM). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>138 providers responded, including 58 IM, 47 FM, and 33 GU. FM and IM responses generally overlapped with some differences. IM were more positive regarding vacuum erection device (VED) and inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) satisfaction and risk. Comparing GU to FM + IM, GU displayed greater confidence and knowledge about ED. Notably, 63% of GU used the validated International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) compared to 3% of FM + IM. Additionally, 100% of GU strongly/agreed that good options remained after pills failed vs 83% of FM + IM. Significant differences in GU vs FM + IM perspectives on IPP included patient willingness to undergo surgery for ED (67% vs. 12%), patient satisfaction (91% vs. 28%), partner satisfaction (79% vs. 26%) and willingness to recommend/repeat surgery (82% vs. 17%). Notably, 82% of GU vs 10% of FM + IM were aware that Medicare covered implants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey reveals significant knowledge gaps in ED treatment between GU and PCPs. Targeted provider education, particularly about penile prostheses, could optimize patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":23415,"journal":{"name":"Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2024.09.048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To assess and contrast attitudes and confidence regarding erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment among urologists (GU) and primary care providers (PCPs), identifying areas for collaboration, practice improvement, and additional training to enhance men's healthcare (MH) quality and access.
Methods: An anonymous survey with 25 questions on ED treatment, rated on a 5-point Likert scale, was conducted among our institution's providers in GU, internal medicine (IM), and family medicine (FM). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test.
Results: 138 providers responded, including 58 IM, 47 FM, and 33 GU. FM and IM responses generally overlapped with some differences. IM were more positive regarding vacuum erection device (VED) and inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) satisfaction and risk. Comparing GU to FM + IM, GU displayed greater confidence and knowledge about ED. Notably, 63% of GU used the validated International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) compared to 3% of FM + IM. Additionally, 100% of GU strongly/agreed that good options remained after pills failed vs 83% of FM + IM. Significant differences in GU vs FM + IM perspectives on IPP included patient willingness to undergo surgery for ED (67% vs. 12%), patient satisfaction (91% vs. 28%), partner satisfaction (79% vs. 26%) and willingness to recommend/repeat surgery (82% vs. 17%). Notably, 82% of GU vs 10% of FM + IM were aware that Medicare covered implants.
Conclusion: This survey reveals significant knowledge gaps in ED treatment between GU and PCPs. Targeted provider education, particularly about penile prostheses, could optimize patient care.
期刊介绍：
Urology is a monthly, peer–reviewed journal primarily for urologists, residents, interns, nephrologists, and other specialists interested in urology
The mission of Urology®, the "Gold Journal," is to provide practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science information to physicians and researchers practicing the art of urology worldwide. Urology® publishes original articles relating to adult and pediatric clinical urology as well as to clinical and basic science research. Topics in Urology® include pediatrics, surgical oncology, radiology, pathology, erectile dysfunction, infertility, incontinence, transplantation, endourology, andrology, female urology, reconstructive surgery, and medical oncology, as well as relevant basic science issues. Special features include rapid communication of important timely issues, surgeon''s workshops, interesting case reports, surgical techniques, clinical and basic science review articles, guest editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, and historical articles in urology.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
