Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Research
  • Published:

On categorization and quantification of women's sexual dysfunctions: An epidemiological approach

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 16, pages 261–269 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

The objectives of this study are to compare the two definitions of female sexual dysfunction, namely dysfunction per se (A category) and personal distress caused by dysfunction (B category), and to gauge their associations with some sociodemographic aspects and level of sexual well-being. The subjects were a nationally representative sample of sexually active Swedish women (n: 1056) aged 18–65 y, who participated in a combined structured interview/questionnaire investigation. The functions analysed were: self-reported sexual desire, interest, lubrication, orgasm, genital pain and vaginism, which were subclassified for the A and B categories into no, mild (sporadically occurring) and manifest dysfunction. Sexual well-being was reported along a six-grade scale ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. The sociodemographic items registered were: education, occupation, financial situation, social group, immigrant status, location of domicile and church-going. Aggregated mild and manifest dysfunction per se of sexual interest, orgasm and vaginal lubrication were reported by about 60–90%. More than one-third had dyspareunia, but few reported vaginism. Mild dysfunctions were clearly more common than manifest dysfunctions. Not fully 45% of those with manifest low interest and orgasm perceived these dysfunctions as manifestly distressing, while in 60–70% lubricational insufficiency of dyspareunia led to manifest distress. Age and the included sociodemographic variables had marginal or no influence on sexual functions. A four-factor sexual function pattern was identified, closely linking A and B categories in a pairwise manner. Three factors, labelled sexual desire, orgasm and genital function were powerful classifiers (discriminant analysis) of level of sexual well-being. Hence, it is a matter of taste whether to use the A or the B category. Together, they can explain the gross level of satisfaction with sexual life to an adequate extent.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Basson R et al. Report of the international consensus development conference on female sexual dysfunction: definitions and classifications. J Urol 2000; 163: 888–893.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bancroft J, Graham CA, McCord C . Conceptualizing women's sexual problems. J Sex Marital Ther 2001; 27: 95–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Leiblum SR . Critical overviews of the new consensus-based definitions and classifications on female sexual dysfunction. J Sex Marital Ther 2001; 27: 159–168.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Basson R . Human sex–response cycles. J Sex Marital Ther 2001; 27: 33–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Simons JS, Carey MP . Prevalence of sexual dysfunctions: results from a decade of research. Arch Sex Behav 2001; 30: 177–219.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Basson R . Are the complexities of women's sexual function reflected in the new consensus definitions of dysfunctions. J Sex Marital Ther 2001; 27: 106–112.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fugl-Meyer AR, Fugl-Meyer KS . Sexual disabilities, problems and satisfaction in 18–74 year old Swedes. Scand J Sexol 1999; 2: 79–105.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bancroft J . The medicalization of female sexual dysfunction: the need for caution. Arch Sex Behav 2002; 31: 451–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Öberg K, Fugl-Meyer KS, Fugl-Meyer AR . On sexual well-being in sexually abused Swedish women: epidemiological aspects. Sex Relationship Ther 2002; 17: 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hartman U, Heiser K, Rüffer-Hesse C, Kloth G . Female sexual desire disorders: subtypes, classification, personality factors and new directions for treatment. World J Urol 2002; 20: 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tiefer L . A new view of women's sexual problems: Why new? Why now? J Sex Res 2001; 38: 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fugl-Meyer KS, Fugl-Meyer AR . Sexual disabilities are not singularities. Int J Impotence Res 2002; 14: 487–493.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn., 1999 Washington, DC.

  14. Lewin B (ed). Sex in Sweden. The National Institute of Public Health: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fugl-Meyer AR, Melin R, Fugl-Meyer KS . Life satisfaction in 18–64 year old Swedes: in relation to gender, age, partner and immigrant status. J Rehabil Med 2002; 34: 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. WHO. International Statistical Classifiction of Diseases (ICD-10). WHO, 1996.

  17. Laumann EO, Paik A, Rosen R . Sexual dysfunction in the United States. JAMA 1999; 281: 537–544.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosen R, Taylor JF, Leiblum SR, Bachman GA . Prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women: results of a survey study of 329 women in an outpatient gynecological clinic. J Sex Marital Ther 1993; 19: 171–188.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S . The social organization of sexuality sexual practice in the United States. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garde K, Lunde I . Influence of social status on female sexual behavior. A random sample study of 40-year-old Danish women. Scand J Primary Health Care 1984; 1: 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Read S, King M, Watson J . Sexual dysfunction in primary medical care: prevalence, characteristics and detection by the general practitioner. J Public Health Med 1997; 19: 387–391.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Edston E . Bodily evidence can reveal torture. 5-years experience of torture documentation. J Swedish Med Assoc (Lakartidningen) 1999; 96: 628–631, (in Swedish, English abstract).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Leiblum S . Sexual problems and dysfunction: epidemiology, classification and risk factors. J Gender-specific Med 1999; 2: 41–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Basson R . Using a different model for female sexual response to address women's problematic low sexual desire. J Sex Marital Ther 2001; 27: 395–403.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Derogatis L et al. The female sexual distress scale (FSDS): initial validation of a standardized scale for assessment of sexually related personal distress in women. J Sex Marital Ther 2002; 28: 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldstein I et al. Female sexual dysfunction. In: Jardin A, Wagner G, Khoury S, Giuliano F, Padman-Nathan H, Rosen R (eds) Erectile Dysfunction. Plymbridge Distr. Ltd: UK, 2000, pp 509–556.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Basson R . Are our definitions of women's desire, arousal and sexual pain disorders too broad and on definition of orgasmic disorder too narrow? J Sex Marital Ther 2002; 28: 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude for the support given by the Swedish National Institute of Public Health, in particular Kristina Ramstedt, PhD. We also acknowledge Janet Vesterlund for the linguistic revision.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation Medicine and Sexology Unit, Neurocenter, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

    K Öberg, A R Fugl-Meyer & K S Fugl-Meyer

Authors
  1. K Öberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A R Fugl-Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K S Fugl-Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K S Fugl-Meyer.

Appendix

Appendix

Phrasing of five statements addressing sexual dysfunctions, directed only to those sexually active during the last 12 months prior to the investigation. All statements uniformly followed by the question: Has this happened in your sexual life during the last 12 months? For answering alternatives, see text.

Table 4
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Öberg, K., Fugl-Meyer, A. & Fugl-Meyer, K. On categorization and quantification of women's sexual dysfunctions: An epidemiological approach. Int J Impot Res 16, 261–269 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901151

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901151

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links