Jefferson, F

Abstract Introduction Sexual therapy for male sexual dysfunction has been used to help patients address a variety of sexual dysfunction-related conditions. While this intervention is frequently recommended for patients by male sexual health experts, the rate of adherence to the recommended therapy and associated factors is unknown. Objective To understand factors leading to completion of sex therapy consultations and barriers that prevent it. Methods A survey was developed by experts in the management of male sexual dysfunction and sex therapy at our institution. The survey included questions focusing on the decision to pursue sex therapy (or not), barriers or facilitating factors, patient perceptions regarding the referral, and treatment success. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify those patients who were referred for sexual therapy after undergoing evaluation for male sexual dysfunction at an academic Men’s Health urology clinic from 2017 - present. The survey was mailed out to these patients, and respondent survey data was compiled to evaluate survey responses. Results To date, 23 patients completed the survey (20% response rate). Sixty-five percent of survey respondents were ≥ 50 years of age, 87% were straight, and 71% were married. Reasons for sex therapy referral were frequently multi-factorial and included erectile dysfunction (65%, n=15), low libido (43%, n=10), ejaculatory dysfunction (39%, n=9), performance anxiety (30%, n=7), relationship problems (30%, n-7), and genital pain (14%, n=3). Seventy-eight percent of patients (n=18) felt that sex therapy consultation was a reasonable part of their treatment plans. Six (26%) patients did not attend their recommended sex therapy consultations. Reported barriers included sense of shame (n=2), embarrassment (n=2), scheduling conflicts (n=1), lack of anticipated benefits (n=1), and feeling dismissed by the referring provider (n=2). Those who attended sex therapy frequently reported the perception that referral made sense based on their symptoms (n=10, 59%) and/or a feeling of desperation to “do anything do get better” (n=11, 65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients who attended sex therapy found it helpful and would recommend it to a friend with a similar concern. Conclusions The majority of male patients who are referred to sexual therapy feel it is beneficial. However, one in four men choose not to pursue this line of treatment despite recommendations from their treating physicians. Future work is needed to address barriers to pursuing sex therapy. Disclosure No

ABSTRACT Introduction Vasectomy reversal (VR) is rarely covered by insurance, creating a market similar to cosmetic surgery with direct marketing to patients. While cost is an immediate concern for patients, surgeon training and experience are essential for a successful outcome. Patients considering VR are likely to seek information online regarding providers and the nature of the procedure. Objective In this study, we reviewed the characteristics of providers marketing VR online, as well as the comprehensiveness of their website content. Additionally, we sought to determine differences in VR practice patterns between academic and private practices. Methods We identified VR practices operating within the top 50 populous metropolitan areas in the USA. Practice websites were reviewed to obtain information such as educational background of providers, use of operating microscope, ability to perform vasoepididymostomy (VE), surgical volume, and out-of-pocket cost. Based on the information available from practice websites, providers were assigned a non-validated “REVERSAL score” out of 12, based on 8 domains (Risks disclosure; provider's Educational background; ability to perform VE; Expense disclosure; success Rate disclosure; Surgical volume disclosure; disclosure of Alternatives to VR; and Level of magnification used for VR) (Table). Descriptive statistics were used to compare the results between academic and private practices. Results 107 providers were identified (29 academic and 78 private). All but 2 were male, and similarly all but 2 had Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree. Review of practice websites allowed us to obtain complete information (REVERSAL score of 12) on only one provider (academic), with the majority (66%) of providers achieving REVERSAL score of ≤6. Providers with formal fellowship training in andrology, microsurgery, and/or infertility achieved higher REVERSAL scores compared to those without (6.9 ± 2.4 vs. 4.8 ± 2.4, p < 0.01). Academic providers were more likely to have completed pertinent fellowship training compared to private practice providers (97% vs. 44%, p < 0.05). Only 14% of academic providers disclosed procedure cost online, compared to 40% of private practice providers (p < 0.05). There was a trend toward increased use of online advertisements by private practice providers (22% vs. 10%, p = 0.07), and increased reference to literature success rates by academic providers (59% vs. 41%, p = 0.10). Among the 35 providers who disclosed pricing online, mean cost of VR was $5,990 ± 1,935. There was a non-significant trend toward increased cost with academic practices compared to private practices ($7,337 ± 1,103 vs. $5,765 ± 1,964, p = 0.09). There was significant reduction in cost when comparing non-urologists vs. urologists ($3,584 ± 1,554 vs. $6,591 ± 1,518, p < 0.01), and when comparing providers without pertinent fellowship training to those with ($5,405 ± 2,000 vs. $6,769 ± 1,590, p < 0.05). Conclusions There is significant lack of transparency in publicly available information from VR practices, both academic and private. Practices should implement measures to improve the dissemination of information to the general public, so that patients may more easily compare various providers. Disclosure Work supported by industry: no. A consultant, employee (part time or full time) or shareholder is among the authors (Coloplast, AMS).