Erectile Dysfunction in a Sample of Sexually Active Young Adult Men from a U.S. Cohort: Demographic, Metabolic and Mental Health Correlates
Abstract
Purpose:
Little is understood about physiological and psychological correlates of erectile dysfunction among younger men. We examined prevalence and correlates of erectile dysfunction in a large U.S. sample of 18 to 31-year-old men.
Materials and Methods:
Erectile dysfunction prevalence and severity (defined using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 scale) were examined in cross-sectional survey data from 2,660 sexually active men, age 18 to 31 years, from the 2013 Growing Up Today Study. Erectile dysfunction medication and supplement use were self-reported. Multivariable models estimated associations of moderate-to-severe erectile dysfunction with demographic (age, marital status), metabolic (body mass index, waist circumference, history of diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia) and mental health (depression, anxiety, antidepressant use, tranquilizer use) variables.
Results:
Among sexually active men 11.3% reported mild erectile dysfunction and 2.9% reported moderate-to-severe erectile dysfunction. Married/partnered men had 65% lower odds of erectile dysfunction compared to single men. Adjusting for history of depression, antidepressant use was associated with more than 3 times the odds of moderate-to-severe erectile dysfunction. Anxiety was associated with greater odds of moderate-to-severe erectile dysfunction, as was tranquilizer use. Few men (2%) reported using erectile dysfunction medication or supplements. However, among them, 29.7% misused prescription erectile dysfunction medication. Limitations include reliance upon cross-sectional data and the sample’s limited racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity.
Conclusions:
Erectile dysfunction was common in a large sample of sexually active young adult men from a U.S. cohort and was associated with relationship status and mental health. Health providers should screen for erectile dysfunction in young men, and monitor use of prescription erectile dysfunction medications and supplements for sexual functioning.
References
- 1. : Impact of erectile dysfunction and its subsequent treatment with sildenafil: qualitative study. BMJ 2004; 328: 1037. Google Scholar
- 2. : Attitudes and experiences: qualitative perspectives on erectile dysfunction from the female partner. J Health Psychol 2012; 17: 3. Google Scholar
- 3. : Erectile dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1802. Google Scholar
- 4. : Erectile dysfunction. Lancet 2013; 381: 153. Google Scholar
- 5. : Prevalence and risk factors for erectile dysfunction in the US. Am J Med 2007; 120: 151. Google Scholar
- 6. : Medicated sex in Britain: evidence from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. Sex Transm Infect 2016; 92: 32. Google Scholar
- 7. : One patient out of four with newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction is a young man—worrisome picture from the everyday clinical practice. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 1833. Google Scholar
- 8. : Erectile dysfunction in fit and healthy young men: psychological or pathological?Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6: 79. Google Scholar
- 9. : Erectile dysfunction and Viagra use: what's up with college-age males?J Adolesc Heal 2006; 39: 452. Google Scholar
- 10. : Recreational use of erectile dysfunction medications in undergraduate men in the United States: characteristics and associated risk factors. Arch Sex Behav 2011; 40: 597. Google Scholar
- 11. : Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Urol 1994; 151: 54. Link, Google Scholar
- 12. : Impact of a first treatment with phosphodiesterase inhibitors on men and partners' quality of sexual life: results of a prospective study in primary care. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 1850. Google Scholar
- 13. : The International Index Of Erectile Function (IIEF): a state-of-the-science review. Int J Impot Res 2002; 14: 226. Google Scholar
- 14. : Evaluation of young men with organic erectile dysfunction. Asian J Androl 2015; 17: 11. Google Scholar
- 15. : The contribution of common medical conditions and drug exposures to erectile dysfunction in adult males. J Urol 2007; 178: 591. Link, Google Scholar
- 16. : Erectile dysfunction and coronary risk factors: prospective results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. Prev Med (Baltim) 2000; 30: 328. Google Scholar
- 17. : A prospective study of risk factors for erectile dysfunction. J Urol 2006; 176: 217. Link, Google Scholar
- 18. : Sildenafil (Viagra) and club drug use in gay and bisexual men: the role of drug combinations and context. Am J Mens Health 2007; 1: 139. Google Scholar
- 19. : Polysubstance use and HIV/STD risk behavior among Massachusetts men who have sex with men accessing department of public health mobile van services: implications for intervention development. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2008; 22: 745. Google Scholar
- 20. : Adulterated sexual enhancement supplements: more than mojo. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 1169. Google Scholar
- 21. : Cross-sectional measurement of nutrient intake among adolescents in 1996. Prev Med (Baltim) 2001; 33: 27. Google Scholar
- 22. : Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 1999; 11: 319. Google Scholar
- 23. : Should we tailor the clinical management of erectile dysfunction according to different ages?J Sex Med 2019; 16: 999. Google Scholar
- 24. : Changes in the prevalence of non-medical prescription drug use disorders in the United States: 1991-1992 and 2001-2002. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007; 90: 252. Google Scholar
- 25. : Presence of banned drugs in dietary supplements following FDA recalls. JAMA 2014; 312: 1691. Google Scholar
- 26. : Safety and quality assessment of 175 illegal sexual enhancement products seized in red-light districts in Singapore. Drug Saf 2009; 32: 1141. Google Scholar
- 27. : Taking stock of dietary supplements' harmful effects on children, adolescents, and young adults. J Adolesc Healh 2019; 65: 455. Google Scholar
No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article.
The Growing Up Today Study (GUTS) was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants U01-HL145386, DA033974, HD066963, OH0098003 and DK084001. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIH.
Editor’s Note: This article is the fifth of 5 published in this issue for which category 1 CME credits can be earned. Instructions for obtaining credits are given with the questions on pages 639 and 640.
