http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6665-2154
Figures
Abstract
Objective
Sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis (MS) is a significant, but often underestimated and overlooked suffering. Interventions to treat sexual dysfunction in MS are rare. The relation between sexual dysfunction in MS and psychological as well as neuropsychological aspects is evident. However, this field of research remains markedly underdeveloped in this severe chronic illness. The aim of this scoping review is to describe the relevant knowledge in this area and to identify psychological interventions to treat sexual dysfunctions in MS.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted to answer the following questions: (1) Which psychological and neuropsychological factors impact on sexual dysfunction in MS and vice versa? (2) What kind of psychological interventions aiming to improve sexual dysfunctions in MS are available? A comprehensive search and review of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was completed by using a recent methodological framework for scoping reviews.
Results
23 publications covering a total of 13,259 people with MS and 532 healthy controls were identified. Sexual dysfunction was found to be very common in MS and there is an obvious relation to psychological disorders as e.g. depression and anxiety and also to psychological aspects as partner relationship and quality of life. The relation between sexual dysfunction in MS and neuropsychological impairment has only rarely been studied and no clear results were found. Only two studies were identified, assessing the effectiveness of psychological intervention studies on sexual dysfunction in people with MS, and a third study presenting a secondary analysis of a study targeting depression. All three studies reported significant improvements in sexual dysfunction as well as partly in psychological variables.
Citation: Pöttgen J, Rose A, van de Vis W, Engelbrecht J, Pirard M, Lau S, et al. (2018) Sexual dysfunctions in MS in relation to neuropsychiatric aspects and its psychological treatment: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0193381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193381
Editor: Christian Veauthier, Charite Medical University Berlin, GERMANY
Received: May 31, 2017; Accepted: February 9, 2018; Published: February 27, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Pöttgen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study was funded by RIMS (Rehabilitation In MS, www.eurims.org). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a heterogeneous inflammatory and degenerative disease of the central nervous system (CNS) and affects mostly young adults. MS is characterized by demyelination and damage of axons and affects physical as well as psychological and cognitive aspects of patients’ lives [1,2]. Both depression and cognitive impairment are common burdens in people with MS. Sexual dysfunction (SD) in MS is one of the more hidden symptoms, which are often overlooked in clinical examinations, but have a large impact on patients’ well-being [3].
Human sexuality, sexual dysfunction and therapy
Human sexuality is complex and consists of anatomical, physiological, psychological, developmental, cultural, and relational factors [4]. Seven components of human sexuality have been identified: gender identity, orientation, intention, desire, arousal, orgasm, emotional satisfaction (DSM-IV). To describe human sexual behaviour, Masters & Johnson [5] developed the sexual response cycle which consists of four phases (excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution) and was later adapted to desire, arousal, orgasm, and resolution including sub-components [6]. Phase 1 (desire) reflects the biological, psychological, and social aspects of desire. Phase 2, arousal, is stimulated by psychological and/or physiological components and prepares for phase 3, i.e. orgasm. In this phase physiological factors related to phase 2 continue, while in men, ejaculation is perpetuated and in women, the uterus and lower third of the vagina contract involuntarily. The final phase 4, resolution, is highly dependent on the achievement of orgasm. If orgasm is achieved, physiological changes return to baseline, vasocongestion diminishes and calmness and relaxation set in. If orgasm is not achieved, irritability and discomfort may result. SD can occur in each of the phases and can be related to each of the mentioned functions. The DSM V defines general SD as an impairment of the ability for sexual reaction and beneficial sexual experiences of a person [7]. A diagnosis of SD requires a person to feel extreme distress and interpersonal strain for a minimum of 6 months (excluding substance or medication-induced SD). While the focus of these criteria is on the diagnosis of SD, it should be kept in mind that the expression of a person’s sexuality is intimately related to his or her partner’s sexuality [8]. In addition, the impact of psychological as well as cognitive factors as depression, anxiety, stress etc. on SD should also be considered during the treatment of SD [9]. For the treatment of SD, psychotherapeutic interventions as e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy have been proposed as gold standard [10], but also pharmacotherapy as e.g. testosterone, androgen or estrogen supplementation or the modulation of dopaminergic pathways to treat erectile dysfunction can be appropriate treatment options for specific problems [11,12].
Sexual dysfunction in MS
SD in MS is a significant but often underestimated and overlooked suffering. SD is experienced by 50 to 90% of men with MS and 40 to 80% of women with MS[13] which is significantly more than in general population samples[14,15]. Impotence and erectile dysfunction have been consistently reported as the main SD among men with MS. Other problems include decreased libido, fatigue and ejaculatory dysfunction[16–18]. Among women with MS, problems tend to be more wide ranging and include decreased libido, decreased lubrication, orgasmic dysfunction, decreased genital sensation or dysesthesia, dyspareunia and vaginismus[16,18]. Different causes for SD and related problems have been described. DasGupta & Fowler[19] reported disease complications like urinary and bowel symptoms as affecting factor for SD. But, also complaints as sensory dysfunction, psychological problems, side effects of medications, and other disease complications as e.g. spasticity have to be considered as possible causes of SD in MS[20,21]. Also the state and imbalance of hormones in MS (e.g. 17beta estradiol, testosterone, progesterone, and prolactin) may impact SD in MS and could affect sexual well-being and cause sexual problems[14]. However, the aetiology of SD in MS is more complex and is also related to anatomic, physiologic, biologic and psychological factors. The variability and characteristic of SD also appears to be affected by MS-related disability levels and disease duration[22]. Foley & Iverson[23] developed a comprehensive conceptual model of SD in MS consisting primary, secondary and tertiary SD. The model delineates MS-related neurological changes in the CNS (primary SD), MS symptoms that are not related to the neural pathways of the genital system but to MS-related physical changes (secondary SD), and disability-related psychological, emotional, social and cultural influences (tertiary SD). SD is considered to have a great impact on quality of life, cause distress and affect human relationships[22]. In addition, SD is related to psychological impairment as depression or anxiety. A relation between SD and neuropsychological impairment seems to exist, but research regarding causes and effects of SD in relation to neuropsychiatric impairment in MS is rare.
Treatment of SD in MS
Despite their chronic illness and disabilities, people with MS are still persons with a sexual life with the ability to share love, bonding, intimacy and sexual experiences. Many patients will not raise the issue of sexual problems unless specifically asked by their health care provider and many physicians are reluctant to discuss this aspect of impairment[24,25]. Counselling and support interventions have been shown to positively influence sexuality and sexual satisfaction[13,26,27]. In addition, the use of sexual gadgets as e.g. vacuum erection devices has been studied[28]. A number of pharmacological treatments have been proposed especially for men with MS and SD as e.g. Sildenafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction and dopamine agonists (apomorphine)[29]. Women with MS are faced with limited treatment options including sildafenil[30] and possibly estrogen replacement therapy[31,32], although more research is needed.
It is obvious that there is a strong relation between psychological and neuropsychological factors and sexuality in MS, although their impact and the effects of psychological interventions addressing SD in MS have rarely been studies. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the available evidence on SD in MS.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review on the impact of psychological and neuropsychological factors on SD in people with MS following the frameworks of Arksey & O’Malley[33] and Levac[34] as outlined below. Considering the absence of systematic reviews on this topic, this approach seemed most appropriate. All titles retrieved by the search were screened by two independent reviewers and discrepancies discussed afterwards. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools appropriate for the different study design to determine validity and quality of the studies [35]. We slightly adapted the CASP tools regarding our research question to enhance the validity and reliability of the quality assessment. We used the CASP trial checklist for the intervention studies. Cohort studies including longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies and studies without control groups were assessed using the CASP Cohort Study Checklist. For cross-sectional studies with control groups we used the CASP Case Control Study Checklist. Scores ranged from 0-to 7 points with higher values indicating better quality. Two reviewers (J.P., S.K.) assessed studies separately accordingly to the CASP tools requirements and discussed discrepancies of assessments afterwards.
The protocol for this review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016033066).
Eligibility
A scoping review can be used to examine the extent, range and nature of research activity, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review, summarize and disseminate research findings, or identify gaps in the existing literature. Scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews as authors do not typically asses the quality of the evidence in included studies. Main aims of scoping reviews address the identification of broader topics and research questions with the purpose of identifying research gaps and making recommendation for future research[34].
Following the original approach described by Arksey & O’Malley[33], Levac et al.[34] suggested 6 stages of a scoping review: (1) identifying the research question and defining the search strategy; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results (e.g., comparing across interventions); and (6) consultation (optional). The application of the different steps is described in the following.
Step 1: Identifying the research question.
This review aimed to gather more knowledge about psychological and neuropsychological impact on SD in people with MS. The main questions were: (1) what are typical psychological and neuropsychological factors related to SD in people with MS, and (2) are there psychological interventions for SD in people with MS?
Step 2: Identify relevant studies.
We searched: MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsychInfo including the following terms: multiple sclerosis, sex, sexual disorders, sexual symptoms, lubrication, orgasm, sexual satisfaction. Studies were limited to those in English, German, Spanish, French, Dutch, or Italian and to publications since 1985. In addition, we screened the reference lists of included papers and performed a hand searched for recently published articles in relevant journals. The last search was performed on the 7th of November 2016.
Step 3: Study selection (including / excluding).
Retrieval Procedure. In a first step, three reviewers (W.v.d.V., C.C., J.P.) scanned the titles and abstracts independently to determine whether the study evaluated SD in MS in relation to psychological or neuropsychological problems. This sensitive procedure was chosen to include a wide range of articles with different aspects concerning SD in MS in relation to psychological or neuropsychological problems (e.g., quality of partnership and sexuality, SD in relation to quality of life, different therapeutic approaches to treat SD in MS). The main inclusion criterion was the relation of SD in MS to psychological or neuropsychological problems. All next steps were discussed and finalized in meetings with the whole research group. For the abstract and full text screening, studies also had to: 1. include patients and report clear eligibility criteria, 2. present quantitative data, 3. focus on neuro/psychological aspects or interventions addressing sexuality, and 4. include neuropsychological measures obtained by neuropsychological testing. We defined SD very broadly so that all aspects of problems with sexuality would be considered for the review.
The first database search generated 1695 references after de-duplication, of which 131 records remained of initial title screening. Of these, 39 articles had been selected by all authors with an overlap of 92 articles that were not selected by at least one reviewer. Discrepancies were discussed each among authors and finally another 54 articles were excluded for different reasons (see Fig 1). In summary 77 articles were assessed as full text and reviewed by two independent reviewers which led to exclusion of another 54 articles. Finally, 23 articles were included for the scoping review (Fig 1).
Step 4: Charting the data.
Data-extraction. Characteristics of the included articles were extracted using an own data extraction sheet assessing 1. Article name and aim of the study, 2. Study type, 3. Recruitment procedure, 4. Time and location of study, 5. Setting and data collection method, 6. Intervention and treatment duration (if applicable), 7. Ethical approval, 8. Definition of SD, 9. Statistical methods, 10. Inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11. Sample characteristics, 12. Outcome measures (SD, psychological and neuropsychological variables) and the results. Data extraction from the articles was executed in groups of two independent authors each. Results were presented in the whole group and finally cross-checked by the lead author.
Results
Step 5: Collating, summarizing, and reporting results
Characteristics of the studies.
All included studies (n = 23) were published in English. Demographic and disease specific data are summarized in Table 1. The studies included a total of 13,259 people with MS and 532 healthy controls. Patients’ disability levels were reported in only 12 of 23 studies using different measures (EDSS, UNDS, PDDS etc.).
Studies typically reported disease duration. Only eight studies reported the MS course.
Specific study characteristics are displayed in Table 2. Most of the 23 studies were conducted in the US (n = 5), Iran (n = 4), or Italy and Australia (n = 3 each). In six studies healthy controls were examined for comparison. The distribution of SD was between 17 and 100%, while in n = 6 studies SD was not quantified. Five studies only included women and in 17 studies more women than men were examined (female rate 56 to 88%). All of the studies used specific sexual dysfunctions scales or structured interviews. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were reported for 18 studies, more or less specifically.
Research design and outcomes.
Research designs are displayed in Table 2. Outcomes for sexual functions and for psychological and neuropsychological assessments used in included studies are provided in the appendix.
Only three of the 23 studies investigated interventions to improve sexual function. Three cross-sectional studies evaluated sexual function in relation to neuropsychological functioning, whereas the other 15 focused on the relation of SD and psychological measures. One of the two longitudinal studies mainly focused on coping and its impact on sexual functioning over time, while the other investigate changes in the level of sexual functioning after 3 and 6 years; changes in symptoms of SD over time; and related demographic and clinical characteristics.
The most commonly used questionnaires to assess sexual functioning were the Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire (MSISQ) (n = 6) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) (n = 4). Three studies used own questionnaires/interviews.
The main foci of psychological assessment were quality of life (most frequently measured by MSQLI (n = 2) and SF-12 (n = 2)) and depression (most frequently measured by BDI (n = 7) and HDRS (n = 3)). Also coping, fatigue, relationship and social support were focused in relation to sexual functioning, in addition demographic variables as marital status. Neuropsychological aspects were only measured in two studies.
Results of cross-sectional studies.
As shown in Table 3, most cross-sectional studies found significant positive relations between SD and psychological and neuropsychological measures.
SD and depression: In 9 studies depression was found as a significant factor contributing SD in MS.
In three studies only women with MS were studied and significant positive relations between SD measured by FSFI and depression were found [39,40,47]. Six other studies assessed both women and men with MS and found also significant positive relations between different SD subscales (e.g. erectile function, desire, orgasm) and depression [36,38,43,50,53,54].
Dupont [37] could not show a clear relation between SD and depression in 116 people with MS who lived in a partnership. Young et al. [52] investigated SD in relation to depression, fatigue and physical function in 538 people with MS and found no direct association between depression and sexual functioning, but depression appeared as a consequence of the psychological issues associated with SD.
SD and anxiety: The relation between SD and anxiety was assessed in five of the studies with significant positive correlations between SD and anxiety observed in four studies. One could only show a relation between SD and anxiety for women with MS [53], while the other three studies found positive relations between SD and anxiety in both women and men [38,50,54]. On the contrary, Barak et al. [36]did not find any significant correlation between SD and anxiety.
SD and coping: Coping in relation to SD was investigated in two studies. McCabe [45] found a significant negative correlation between SD and one subscale of the WOCQ (focusing on the positive) in men with MS and significant negative correlations between SD and two subscales of the WOCQ (focusing on the positive and cognitive functioning) and a significant positive correlation between SD and problem focused coping in MS women.
SD and fatigue: Two studies found a significant positive relationship between SD and fatigue. One found significant impact only in women with MS [53] whereas Tepavcevic et al. [50] found the relation in both women and men. Gumus et al. [40] also investigated the relation between SD and fatigue in 70 women with MS and 72 healthy controls, but failed to identify a significant relation. Also Young et al. [55] found no impact of fatigue on SD in MS.
SD and cognitive performance: The impact of objective cognitive performance on SD was investigated in three studies. Two studies found significant negative correlations between cognitive performance and SD in MS, but only in women [50,53]. In contrast, Dupont [37] found no significant correlation between cognitive performance and SD in MS.
SD and quality of life: Six studies investigated the relation between SD and quality of life in MS and all of them found significant relationships [3,42,43,48,50,56]. Lew-Starowicz [43] found significant negative correlations between SD and sexuality related QoL domains. Two of the studies [48,50] used a MS specific QoL measure and found significant negative correlations between most of the MSQoL subscales (e.g. physical health, physical role limitations, social function, cognitive function) and SD. Schairer et al. [3] and Vitkova et al. [56] found significant negative correlations between SD and both mental and physical QoL domains measured by SF-12/36. Kolzet et al. [42] only investigated the mental health subscale of the SF-12 and found significant negative correlations with SD in MS.SD and relationship: Three studies assessed SD and marital or couple relationship and found significant correlations. McCabe et al. [44] investigated the impact of SD in MS on social and intimate relationship, and found positive correlations between the frequency of sexual intercourses and the feel about relationship and negative correlations between frequency of sexual intercourses and partner concerns about sex. Another study by McCabe [45] found significant positive correlation between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction and negative correlation between relationship satisfaction and sexual difficulties.
Sexual functioning and physician-patient-communication (not reported in Table 3): Stepleman et al. [49] investigated factors associated with patients’ sex-related communications with their MS physicians and to overall patient sexual satisfaction. In a sample of n = 73 people with MS they found that more than half of people with MS reported SD, but only a third of patients addressed their sexual concerns with their physician. The frequency of communication about sexual concerns showed associations with satisfaction with physician variables, whereas self-efficacy for these interactions was associated with emotional health variables.
Results of longitudinal studies.
McCabe et al. [46] investigated how the use of particular coping strategies at one point in time impacts on sexual and relationship variables after up to 6 months later. The second research question focused on the interrelationships among a number of sexual and relationship variables (sexual satisfaction, sexual activity, sexual dysfunction, and relationship satisfaction) and how these variables predict one another over time. 321 people with MS and 239 people from the general population participated in the study. 265 people with MS had at least one sexual dysfunction. The study found that sexual activity at baseline contributed significantly to relationship satisfaction after six month for men with MS. For people diagnosed with MS for less than 7 years, levels of sexual activity after six month were predicted by levels of sexual and relationship satisfaction, as well as levels of sexual activity at baseline. Results also showed that strategies used to cope with illness have no major role in sexual and relationship satisfaction.
The purpose of the study by Kisic-Tepavcevic et al. [41] was to explore longitudinal changes in the level of sexual functioning after a period of 3 and 6 years of follow-up, and to investigate predictors of changes in SD. The study population comprise a cohort of 93 people with MS who were assessed at baseline, and at the 3- and 6-year follow-up. The number of reported SD symptoms increased markedly for both genders during the whole observation period of six years. Duration of follow-up, age, level of physical disability, depression, and fatigue were identified as independent prognostic factors for deterioration of sexual functioning in people with MS.
Results of intervention studies.
A summary of the three intervention studies is provided in Table 4. In a pilot study, Foley et al. [57] examined the efficacy of a counselling intervention in nine people with MS and their partners in a quasi-experimental research design. The intervention included 12 counselling sessions focused on education, management and cognitive behavioural therapy and consisted of contents of communication with the MS medical treatment team and symptomatic treatment. Results indicated significant improvements in affective and problem-solving communication, marital satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction after the treatment.
In a study which primarily aimed to treat depression in MS, Blackmore et al. [26] investigated the extent of changes in negative and positive partner support to predict sexual satisfaction levels over time in people with MS. The intervention was a 16-week telephone-administered psychotherapy with elements of cognitive behavioural psychotherapy and supportive emotion focused therapy. Results indicated that increased positive partner support was associated with significant improvement in sexual satisfaction over time (β = 0.50, p < .001), as was decreased negative partner support (β = 0.36, p < .01). The authors conclude that both positive and negative partner support have a distinctive role in the outcome of sexual satisfaction for individuals with MS.
Khakbazan et al. [27] evaluated the effectiveness of sexual counselling based on the Permission, Limited Information, Specific Suggestion, Intensive Therapy (PLISSIT) model on the SD of 90 married sexually active women with MS in a randomized clinical trial in Tehran. PLISSIT contents 4 weekly sexual counselling sessions including education, practical hints and exercises, problem solving etc. (90–120 min per session). Results showed improvement in sexual function at 2 and 3 months after the intervention.
Study quality
Results of the CASP assessments are shown in Tables 5–7.
Quality ratings for case control studies ranged from 4/7 to 5/7, cohort studies from 1/7 to 7/7 and intervention studies from 2/7 to 6/7.
Heterogeneity in sampling, data collection, and measurement of identified variables were noted between studies.
Discussion
This is the first review, systematically identifying and summarizing the literature regarding SD in MS in relation to psychological and/or neuropsychological aspects. Apart from mostly cross-sectional studies on associations between SD and these aspects, we also included intervention trials aiming to treat SD and longitudinal studies with respect to psychological and/or neuropsychological aspects. Unfortunately, most studies were small cross-sectional studies limiting the interpretation of results. The paucity of longitudinal and intervention studies further limits the results of this scoping review. It has also to be considered that many cross-sectional studies showing no correlation will not have been published. Therefore, a publication bias towards positive relations cannot be ruled out.
Relations between depression, anxiety, and quality of life and SD in people with MS were commonly researched in the included cross-sectional studies, whereas other psychological factors as cognitive impairment, fatigue, and coping were rarely addressed. There were only three intervention studies carried out for specific SD treatment, of which one was a secondary analysis of a depression treatment study and not targeted on SD in MS. One other was a quasi-experimental designed study with only 9 MS patients and their couples. Only one of the intervention studies regarding SD in MS treatment was a randomized controlled trial by using psychological treatment. Furthermore, there were only two longitudinal studies describing the course of SD in relation to psychological aspects.
Although several studies met our inclusion criteria, it remains difficult to draw clear conclusions from the analysis as studies used many different instruments to measure SD. The most often used instruments to assess SD in MS were the Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire (MSISQ) and the Female sexual function index (FSFI). Both instruments show good psychometric characteristics and are well established in clinical routine and in research [58,59]. The MSISQ is an MS specific instrument whereas the FSFI is generic measures of SD. Studies have to consider the different approaches of questionnaires. As MS specific measures might better account for more MS-specific triggers of SD and may include a couple of modifiable factors moderating SD in MS these tools might be even more sensitive for changes based on interventions. Therefore treatment studies should apply specific tools [27].
Also studies measured and reported a wide range of different psychological aspects (e.g. depression, anxiety, quality of life) using many different instruments. Of the 18 cross-sectional studies nine reported SD in significant relation to depression while two other studies did not find any relations between depression and SD in MS. It has often been reported that depression is the most common psychiatric disorder in people with MS and more prevalent than in other chronic diseases [60]. Many factors might trigger depression in MS such as localization of brain lesions, psychosocial factors, drugs used for treatment, and other disabilities [2]. The relationship between SD in MS and depression could be attributed as part of a vicious cycle where depression contributes to the SD and vice versa which is supported by the fact that SD in MS often occurs in patients in an early stage of disease with no or mild disability [18]. In line with this results also in persons with depression not associated to somatic disease the bidirectional association between depression and SD is reported [61]. In contrast two studies did not find significant relations between depression and SD in MS [37,52]. The study by Dupont [37] investigated SD in 116 MS patients and their partners, but MS patients’ depression scores were far below cut-off scores for depression with only few showing depressive mood. Young et al. [52] also found no significant contribution of depression on SD in MS in 431 MS patients. As a possible explanation, the study used a distinct measure to assess specific aspects of SD (MSISQ-15] and found that depression as the psychological influence of MS impacts worries regarding sexuality, but not directly physical aspects of sexuality.
There is a close relation between depression and anxiety, which is depicted by the fact that five cross-sectional studies observed a relation between SD and anxiety, four of which reported significant positive correlations between SD and anxiety. The impact of anxiety on SD in MS underlines the role of psychological factors on the determination of SD in MS. On the other hand, SD in MS seems also to be characterized and driven by physical impairment as e.g. bladder problems [62] or by specific brain lesion [36]. In addition, SD has been reported to be related to longer MS disease duration and advanced disability [63,64].
In six studies the relation between SD and quality of life (Qol) in MS was investigated and all of them found significant negative relations. In two studies all of the subscales of QoL were calculated in relation to SD total scores and almost all subscales of the QoL measures (e.g. psychological, social and body function) correlated with SD in MS [48,50]. In contrast, Lew-Starowicz et al. [43] focused on the relation between the subscales of SD and QoL showing significant negative correlations in most of the SD subscales (e.g. orgasmic function, erectile function, lubrication, sexual pain) for both, male and female MS patients, but also showing differences between genders. In women a strong association of diminished desire and QoL was detected, but no such correlation was seen in men. A possible explanation could be the more relational determination of female sexuality compared to more function-oriented male sexuality (i.e. relatively less dependent on relationship intimacy and stability). Accessory, we identified more studies with female participants, and male MS patients often are older and corresponding more disabled than women.
Because of the evidence of the massive impact of MS on QoL, the relation between SD and QoL in MS is not remarkable as both physical and psychosocial disease specific factors of SD in MS influence QoL in patients and vice versa.
Four studies looked for relations between SD and fatigue in MS of which only two found significant positive correlations in female and male patients. This is surprising as fatigue is one of the most frequent symptoms reported by people with MS, affecting between 50% and 80% of patients [65]. Due to the small number of studies with inconsistent results, the role of fatigue in relation to SD in MS cannot be interpreted so far, but it is conceivable that presence of fatigue may interfere with sexual life. Very recently, a large international online study with more than 2000 MS patients revealed also independent associations between sexual function and satisfaction and a range of demographic factors, including age, as well as depression risk, antidepressant use, and fatigue in MS patients [66]. In addition, they found associations between SD with modifiable lifestyle factors diet and physical activity.
Two of three studies found significant negative correlations between cognitive performance and SD in MS but only in women with MS [50,53]. Based on the rare investigation of the relation of cognitive impairment on SD in MS no conclusion can be drawn. Apart from this results it should be considered that cognitive distraction in general population is a significant contributor to sexual response problems in both, men and women [9].
Sexuality and couple relationship are strongly associated. All three studies found significant correlations negative between SD and marital or couple relationship. McCabe et al. [44] did not separately looked for gender differences. But both, Lew-Starowicz & Rola [43] and McCabe [45] found more relation between SD and relationship factors in MS women than in MS man. Results are consistent with findings in the general population and Brotto et al. [9] also underlined the interdependence of sexual function between partners, with dysfunction in one partner often contributing to problems in sexual functioning and/or sexual satisfaction for the other. An open question is the importance of good partner relationship for fulfilled sexual life and vice versa.
Sexuality-related communication between people with MS and their MS physicians were investigated by Stepleman et al. [49], who found that more than half of people with MS reported SD, but only a third addressed their sexual concerns to their physician. Findings are in line with results of Lew-Starowicz et al. [67] and have clinical implications considering the high prevalence of SD in people with MS.
Only two longitudinal observations were found, which is surprising considering the progressive nature of the disease and a probable growing impact on both SD and psychological factors [41]. And, there were only three intervention studies focusing with inconclusive outcomes, highlighting the need for more rigorously conducted intervention studies, aiming to support people with MS and SD. In addition, the meaning of sexual activity for MS patients should be more thoroughly studied, through their life cycle and especially in more disabled patients. Not one study addressed these factors.
SD has been described in maJor chronic neurologic conditions as Parkinson disease, stroke and dementia [68–70]. SD dimensions in MS are comparable with dysfunction in Parkinson disease. In Parkinson disease also comparable relations to neuropsychiatric symptoms were found whereas data on SD in dementia are scarce, mainly reporting reduced frequency of sex and erectile dysfunction or SD in relation to hyper sexuality and sexual violation [69]. In stroke a recent study in the USA described that many stroke survivors experienced sexual dysfunction and indicated a desire for additional information and counseling and identified sexuality as an important issue in their post-stroke rehabilitation which is as well neglected in current care [70].
A more general point of view in discussing our findings is on the language used to describe sexuality and SD. How we define sexuality is reflected in the language we use about it, and by screening the literature we found a tendency to define and describe sexuality in relation to the physiological or genital functioning. Psychological factors as “identity”, “role”, “intimacy” which are of course also related to sexuality and SD, but—in most of the studies—are not included. These factors should be more addressed in future work.
We used the CASP tool for quality assessment and overall found satisfactory quality for cohort studies, but revealed lower quality for intervention and case control studies. Major problems were consideration of confounding factors and presentation of study result (especially reporting of confidence intervals).
Our review for the first time systematically reviewed all studies on SD and neuro-/psychological factors in people with MS in a comprehensive scoping review approach. The results may be used to design further association studies which should preferably by longitudinal and use commonly used validated instrument in order to produce reliable and comparable results. We also hope that our results will raise the awareness of clinicians for SD in people with MS and lead to more meaningful clinical encounters. Finally, we expect the results will advertise for future intervention studies targeting SD in people with MS, where obviously a huge potential for non-pharmacological psychological interventions could be identified.
In conclusion, we have shown that neuro-/psychological factors in people with MS and SD is widely recognised and a number of studies have been performed. We found gender differences for both, SD in MS in general and in relation to neuropsychiatric impairment. Differences might be driven by differences in male and female sexuality and also in SD. Gender specific questionnaires according to this differ, those for men are often more functional specific whereas those for women are more related to psychological aspects.
Supporting information
S1 Table. List of used outcome measures for sexual functioning, psychological and neuropsychological assessment in n = 23 studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193381.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Relations between SD and psychological and neuropsychological measures. sm = self made.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193381.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
RiMS Special Interest Group (SIG) Psychology and Neuropsychology
Belgium- National MS Centre Melsbroek: M Pirard, Denmark-Sclerose Hospital Erne, Ry: J Engelbrecht; Finland-Neurological Masku Rehabilitation Centre, Masku: P. Hämäläinen; GERMANY—Institute for Neuroimmunology and MS Research (INIMS), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg: J Poettgen, S Lau; Netherlands-Revalidatie Centre Roessingh, Enschede: W v d Vis; Slowenia-University Medical Centre, LJublJana: A Ozura; Spain- CemCat Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona: Carol Cerqueda; United Kingdom: The Raphael Medical Centre, Tonbridge: A Rose.
References
- 1. Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2002;359(9313):1221–31. pmid:11955556
- 2. Feinstein A, DeLuca J, Baune B, Filippi M, Lassman H. Cognitive and neuropsychiatric disease manifestations in MS. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Elsevier; 2013 Jan;2(1):4–12.
- 3. Schairer LC, Foley FW, Zemon V, Tyry T, Campagnolo D, Marrie RA, et al. The impact of sexual dysfunction on health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2013 Sep 3.
- 4.
Sadock BJ, Sadock VA. Kaplan and Sadock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences and Clinical Psychiatry. Ninth Edit. Wilkins LW&, editor. Philadelphia; 2003.
- 5.
Masters W, Johnson V. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.; 1966.
- 6.
Kaplan HS. The New Sex Therapy: Active Treatment of Sexual Dysfunctions. KAPLAN HS, editor. New York: Brunner and Maze; 1974.
- 7.
Association AP. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV. Fifth. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
- 8.
Levine S. Sexual disorders. In: Tasman A, Kay J, Lieberman J, editors. Psychiatry. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2003.
- 9. Brotto L, Atallah S, Johnson-Agbakwu C, Rosenbaum T, Abdo C, Byers ES, et al. Psychological and Interpersonal Dimensions of Sexual Function and Dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2016 Apr;13(4):538–71. pmid:27045257
- 10. Trudel G, Marchand A, Ravart M, Aubin S, Turgeon L, Fortier P. The effect of a cognitive-behavioral group treatment program on hypoactive sexual desire in women. Sex Relatsh Ther. 2001;16(2):145–64.
- 11. Abdallah RT, Simon JA. Testosterone therapy in women: its role in the management of hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Int J Impot Res. 2007 Sep 21;19(5):458–63. pmid:17581596
- 12. Simonsen U, Comerma-Steffensen S, Andersson K-E. Modulation of Dopaminergic Pathways to Treat Erectile Dysfunction. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2016 Oct;119:63–74. pmid:27541930
- 13. Foley FW, LaRocca NG, Sanders AS, Zemon V. Rehabilitation of intimacy and sexual dysfunction in couples with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2001 Dec;7(6):417–21. pmid:11795465
- 14. Lombardi G, Celso M, Bartelli M, Cilotti A, Del Popolo G. Female Sexual Dysfunction and Hormonal Status in Multiple Sclerosis Patients. J Sex Med. 2011 Apr;8(4):1138–46. pmid:21210956
- 15. Laumann EO, Nicolosi A, Glasser DB, Paik A, Gingell C, Moreira E, et al. Sexual problems among women and men aged 40–80y: prevalence and correlates identified in the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors. Int J Impot Res. 2005 Feb 24; 17(1):39–57. pmid:15215881
- 16. Valleroy ML, Kraft GH. Sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1984 Mar; 65(3):125–8. pmid:6703886
- 17. Minderhoud JM, Leemhuis JG, Kremer J, Laban E, Smits PM. Sexual disturbances arising from multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 1984 Oct 70(4):299–306. pmid:6507039
- 18. Stenager E, Stenager E, Jensen K. Sexual Aspects of Multiple Sclerosis. Semin Neurol. 1992 Jun 19;12(2):120–4. pmid:1502429
- 19. DasGupta R, Fowler CJ. Bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: management strategies. Drugs. 2003;63(2):153–66. pmid:12515563
- 20. Hennessey A, Robertson NP, Swingler R, Compston DA. Urinary, faecal and sexual dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 1999 Nov;246(11):1027–32. pmid:10631634
- 21. Mattson D, Petrie M, Srivastava DK, McDermott M. Multiple sclerosis. Sexual dysfunction and its response to medications. Arch Neurol. 1995 Sep;52(9):862–8. pmid:7661722
- 22. Kessler TM, Fowler CJ, Panicker JN. Sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9(3):341–50. pmid:19271943
- 23.
Foley FW, Iverson J. Sexuality and MS. In: Kalb RC, Scheinberg LC, editors. MS & the Family. New York: Demos Publications; 1992.
- 24. Anderson BJ, Wolf FM. Chronic physical illness and sexual behavior: Psychological issues. J Consult Clin Psychol. American Psychological Association; 1986; 54(2):168–75.
- 25. Lew-Starowicz M, Rola R. Prevalence of Sexual Dysfunctions Among Women with Multiple Sclerosis. Sex Disabil. Springer; 2013 Jun;31(2):141–53.
- 26. Blackmore DE, Hart SL, Mohr DC. Improvements in Partner Support Predict Sexual Satisfaction among Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis. 2011;56(2):117–22.
- 27. Khakbazan Z, Daneshfar F, Behboodi-Moghadam Z, Nabavi SM, Ghasemzadeh S, Mehran A. The effectiveness of the Permission, Limited Information, Specific suggestions, Intensive Therapy (PLISITT) model based sexual counseling on the sexual function of women with Multiple Sclerosis who are sexually active. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Elsevier; 2016;8:113–9.
- 28. Fletcher SG, Castro-Borrero W, Remington G, Treadaway K, Lemack GE, Frohman EM. Sexual dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis: a multidisciplinary approach to evaluation and management. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2009 Feb;6(2):96–107. pmid:19198623
- 29. Landtblom A-M. Treatment of erectile dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Neurother. 2006 Jun 10; 6(6):931–5. pmid:16784415
- 30. Dachille G, Ludovico GM, Pagliarulo G, Vestita G. Sexual dysfunctions in multiple sclerosis. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2008 Jun;60(2):77–9. pmid:18500221
- 31. Laan E, van Lunsen RH, Everaerd W. The effects of tibolone on vaginal blood flow, sexual desire and arousability in postmenopausal women. Climacteric. 2001 Mar;4(1):28–41. pmid:11379375
- 32. Uygur D, Yeşildaglar N, Erkaya S. Effect on sexual life—a comparison between tibolone and continuous combined conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2005 Apr 7;20(4):209–12. pmid:16019363
- 33. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. 2005;
- 34. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. pmid:20854677
- 35.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP): Making sense of evidence. CASP UK, London. 2013. http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8. Accessed 30 November 2017.
- 36. Barak Y, Achiron A, Elizur A, Gabbay U. Sexual Dysfunction in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Psychological Correlates. 1996;21(4):255–8.
- 37. Dupont S. Sexual function and ways of coping in patients with multiple sclerosis and their partners. Sex Marital Ther. 1996;11(4):359–372 14p.
- 38. Fragalà E, Privitera S, Giardina R, Di Rosa A, Russo GI, Favilla V, et al. Determinants of sexual impairment in multiple sclerosis in male and female patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction: Results from an italian cross-sectional study. J Sex Med. 2014;11(10):2406–13. pmid:25042622
- 39. GhaJarzadeh M, Jalilian R, Mohammadifar M, Sahraian MA, Azimi A. Sexual function in women with multiple sclerosis. Acta Med Iran. 2014; 52(4):315–8. pmid:24901864
- 40. Gumus H, Akpinar Z, Yilmaz H. Effects of multiple sclerosis on female sexuality: A controlled study. J Sex Med. 2014;11(2):481–6. pmid:24299569
- 41. DariJa K-T, TatJana P, Goran T, NeboJsa S, Irena D, Sarlota M, et al. Sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: A 6-year follow-up study. J Neurol Sci. Elsevier B.V.; 2015;358(1–2):317–23.
- 42. Kolzet J, Quinn H, Zemon V, Tyry T, Marrie RA, Foley FW, et al. Predictors of Body Image Related Sexual Dysfunction in Men and Women with Multiple Sclerosis. Sex Disabil. 2014;33(1):63–73.
- 43. Lew-Starowicz M, Rola R. Correlates of Sexual Function in Male and Female Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. J Sex Med. 2014;11:2172–2180. pmid:24965105
- 44. McCabe MP, McDonald E, Deeks AA, Vowels LM, Cobain MJ. The impact of multiple sclerosis on sexuality and relationships. J Sex Res [Internet]. Taylor & Francis Group; 1996 Jan;33(3):241–8.
- 45. McCabe MP. Relationship functioning and sexuality among people with multiple sclerosis. J Sex Res. 2002;39(4):302–9. pmid:12545413
- 46. McCabe MP, McKern S, McDonald E, Vowels LM. Changes Over Time in Sexual and Relationship Functioning of People with Multiple Sclerosis. J Sex Marital Ther. 2003;29(4):305–21. pmid:14504019
- 47. Mohammadi K, Rahnama P, Mohseni SM, Sahraian MA, Montazeri A. Determinants of sexual dysfunction in women with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. BMC Neurology; 2013;13(1):83.
- 48. Qaderi K, Merghati Khoei E. Sexual Problems and Quality of Life in Women with Multiple Sclerosis. Sex Disabil. 2014;32(1):35–43.
- 49. Stepleman LM, Lopez EJ, Stutts LA, Hudson WH, Rutter Goodworth M-C, Rahn R. Physician–Patient Communication About Sexual Functioning in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Sex Disabil. Springer US; 2016;34(3):239–54.
- 50. Tepavcevic D, Basuroski I, Drulovic J, Kostic J, Stojsavljevic N, Pekmezovic T. The impact of sexual dysfunction on the quality of life measured by MSQoL-54 in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2008;14(8):1131–6. pmid:18632783
- 51. Mikula P, Nagyova I, Krokavcova M, Vitkova M, Rosenberger J, Szilasiova J, et al. Coping and its importance for quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2013 Jul 4;1–5.
- 52. Young CA, Tennant A, Mills R, Rog D, Ford H, Orchard K. Sexual functioning in multiple sclerosis: Relationships with depression, fatigue and physical function. Mult Scler J. 2016;1–8.
- 53. Zivadinov R, Zorzon M, Bosco A, Bragadin LM, Moretti R, Bonfigli L, et al. Sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: II. Correlation analysis. Mult Scler. 1999;5(6):428–31. pmid:10618700
- 54. Zorzon M, Zivadinov R, Locatelli L, Stival B, Nasuelli D, Bratina A, et al. Correlation of sexual dysfunction and brain magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. 2003;108–10. pmid:12617277
- 55. Young CA, Tennant A, Mills R, Rog D, Ford H, Orchard K. Sexual functioning in multiple sclerosis: Relationships with depression, fatigue and physical function. Mult Scler J. SAGE PublicationsSage UK: London, England; 2016 Nov 14.
- 56. Vitkova M, Rosenberger J, Krokavcova M, Szilasiova J, Gdovinova Z, Groothoff JW, et al. Health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients with bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(12):987–92. pmid:23962192
- 57. Foley FW, LaRocca NG, Sanders AS, Zemon V. Rehabilitation of intimacy and sexual dysfunction in couples with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2000;7(2001):417–21.
- 58. Foley FW, Zemon V, Campagnolo D, Marrie RA, Cutter G, Tyry T, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire—re-validation and development of a 15-item version with a large US sample. Mult Scler J. 2013 Aug;19(9):1197–203.
- 59. Rosen , Brown C., Heiman J., Leib R S., Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A Multidimensional Self-Report Instrument for the Assessment of Female Sexual Function. J Sex Marital Ther. 2000 Apr; 26(2):191–208. pmid:10782451
- 60. Feinstein A. Multiple sclerosis and depression. Mult Scler. 2011;17(11):1276–81. pmid:22058085
- 61. Clayton AH, El Haddad S, Iluonakhamhe J-P, Ponce Martinez C, Schuck AE. Sexual dysfunction associated with major depressive disorder and antidepressant treatment. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014 Oct 22; 13(10):1361–74. pmid:25148932
- 62. Borello-France D, Leng W, O’Leary M, Xavier M, Erickson J, Chancellor MB, et al. Bladder and sexual function among women with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2004 Aug; 10(4):455–61.
- 63. Zivadinov R, Zorzon M, Locatelli L, Stival B, Monti F, Nasuelli D, et al. Sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: a MRI, neurophysiological and urodynamic study. J Neurol Sci. 2003 Jun 15;210(1–2):73–6. pmid:12736092
- 64. Demirkiran M, Sarica Y, Uguz S, Yerdelen D, Aslan K. Multiple sclerosis patients with and without sexual dysfunction: are there any differences? Mult Scler. 2006;12(2):209–14. pmid:16629425
- 65. Krupp L. Multiple Sclerosis. 2006;367–9. pmid:16900749
- 66. Marck CH, Jelinek PL, Weiland TJ, Hocking JS, De Livera AM, Taylor KL, et al. Sexual function in multiple sclerosis and associations with demographic, disease and lifestyle characteristics: an international cross-sectional study. BMC Neurol. BMC Neurology; 2016;16:210. pmid:27814701
- 67. Lew-Starowicz M, Rola R. Prevalence of sexual dysfunctions among women with multiple sclerosis. Sex Disabil. 2013;31(2):141–53. pmid:23704801
- 68. Buhmann C, Dogac S, Vettorazzi E, Hidding U, Gerloff C, Jürgens TP. The impact of Parkinson disease on patients’ sexuality and relationship. J Neural Transm. 2016.
- 69.
Bronner G, Aharon-Peretz J, Hassin-Baer S. Sexuality in patients with Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and other dementias. In: Handbook of clinical neurology. 2015. p. 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63247-0.00017-1 pmid:26003251
- 70. Stein J, Hillinger M, Clancy C, Bishop L. Sexuality after stroke: patient counseling preferences. Disabil Rehabil. 2013 Oct 22;35(21):1842–7. pmid:23336118