Parasexuality in genitourinary investigations: a qualitative study

BMC Research Notes

Paul Gill¹  Chris Shaw¹  Allyson Lipp¹ 

[1] School of Care Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Education, University of South Wales, Glyntaf, CF37 1DL Pontypridd, Wales, UK

关键词: Urology;    Parasexuality;    Sexuality;    Gender;    Genitourinary investigations;    Patient;    Masculinity;    Men;    Male;   

Others  :  1134360
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-7-126

 received in 2014-01-09, accepted in 2014-02-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Genitourinary investigations are performed on a large proportion of middle-aged and older men and the majority undergo investigations for prostate issues. The effects that genitourinary disease can have on men depend on the type of problem, investigations required and treatment including impotence, gynaecomastia and urinary incontinence that have lasting devastating physical, social and psychological effects.

The aim was to explore older men’s experience and views of intimate and intrusive genitourinary investigations and specifically to develop hypotheses and theories concerning gender and sexuality issues in intimate genitourinary investigations.

Methods

Written informed consent was obtained for this qualitative study. Data were collected through one-off, semi-structured interviews involving 15 men in the first year following patient’s last urological procedure. Initially, multiple themes were identified and when analysed further concepts were repeatedly present. As the urological investigations were limited to men, gender and sexuality became prominent issues in the data.

Results

On analysis, the term parasexuality appeared to explain the dynamic of the situation. Parasexuality is a modified form of sexuality which is channelled and limited to maintain propriety. This was not expressed as sexuality in its overt, explicit sense, but instead a type of covert sexuality where professional boundaries are maintained but nonetheless undercurrents remain. This managed version of sexuality created a common currency by which interactions between staff and patients could take place safely.

Feeding into parasexuality were gender role stereotypes and for some of the participants this reflected their own experience, context, historical and cultural norms. Intimate contact in the form of exposure and handling of the participants' genitalia during the investigations particularly challenged the boundaries of parasexuality. In order to remain parasexual, many of the participants suppressed their sexuality. Viewing staff as professional was an additional strategy used by participants to limit any sexuality as parasexuality.

Conclusion

This study has contributed towards the appeal for more studies to examine privacy perceptions of patients in genitalia-related care, however, it is by no means definitive.

Parasexuality goes some way to explain the dynamics of communication between older men and health care professionals during genitourinary investigations.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Lipp et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P: Estimating the world cancer burden: globocan 2000. Int J Cancer 2001, 94(2):153-156.
• [2]Peate I: Men and cancer: the gender dimension. Br J Nurs 2011, 20(6):340-343.
• [3]Wall D, Kristjanson L: Men, culture and hegemonic masculinity: understanding the experience of prostate cancer. Nurs Inq 2005, 12(2):87-97.
• [4]Oliffe J, Bottorff J, Hislop T, McKenzie M: The role of prostate support groups in health promotion. Vancouver: University of British Columbia; 2009.
• [5]Welch LC, Taubenberger S, Tennstedt SL: Patients’ experiences of seeking health care for lower urinary tract symptoms. Res Nurs Health 2011, 34(6):496-507.
• [6]Chapple A, Ziebland S: Prostate cancer: embodied experience and perceptions of masculinity. Sociol Health Illn 2002, 24(6):820-841.
• [7]Oliffe J: Constructions of masculinity following prostatectomy-induced impotence. Soc Sci Med 2005, 60(10):2249-2259.
• [8]Jervis L: The pollution of incontinence and the dirty work of caregiving in a US nursing home. Med Anthropolgy Q 2001, 15(1):84-99.
• [9]Pateman B, Johnson M: Men’s lived experiences following transurethral prostatectomy for benign prostatic hypertrophy. J Adv Nurs 2000, 31(1):51-58.
• [10]Giuffre P, Williams C: Not just bodies: strategies for desexualizing the physical examination of patients. Gend Soc June 2000, 14(3):457-482.
• [11]Meerabeau L: The management of embarrassment and sexuality in health care. J Adv Nurs 1999, 29(6):1507-1513.
• [12]Kadner K: Therapeutic intimacy in nursing. J Adv Nurs 1994, 19(2):215-218.
• [13]Williams A: A literature review on the concept of intimacy in nursing. J Adv Nurs 2001, 33(5):660-667.
• [14]Zang Y, Chung LYF, Wong TKS: A review of the psychosocial issues for nurses in male genitalia-related care. J Clin Nurs 2008, 17(8):983-998.
• [15]Shaw C, Williams K, Assassa R: Patient satisfaction with urodynamics: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs 2000, 32(6):1356-1363.
• [16]WHO: Working definition of sexuality. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2006a. Retrieved 1.7.13
• [17]Horsburgh D: Evaluation of qualitative research. J Clin Nurs 2002, 12:307-312.
• [18]Bailey P: Parasexuality and glamour: the victorian barmaid as cultural prototype*. Gend History 1990, 2(2):148-172.
• [19]Lawler J: Behind the screens: nursing somology and the problem of the body. Melbourne: Churchill-Livingstone; 1991.
• [20]Milligan F: Male sexuality and urethral catheterisation: a review of the literature. Nurs Stand 1999, 13:43-47.
• [21]Simon W, Gagnon J: Sexual scripts. In Culture, Society and Sexuality: a Reader. Edited by Parker R, Aggleton P. Oxon: Routledge; 1999.
• [22]Garmarnikow E: Sexual division of labour. In Feminism and materialism. Edited by Kuhn A, Wolpe A. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1978.
• [23]Carnaby S, Cambridge P: Getting personal: an exploratory study of intimate and personal care provision for people with profound and multiple intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res 2002, 46(part 2):120-132.
• [24]Savage J: Nursing intimacy: an ethnographic approach to nurse-patient interaction. London: Scutari press; 1995.
• [25]Fultz NH, Herzog AR: Gender differences in affiliation and instrumentality across adulthood. Psychol Aging 1991, 6(4):579-586.
• [26]Goffman E: Embarrassment and social organization. Am J Sociol 1956, 62(3):264-271.
• [27]Evans JA: Cautious caregivers: gender stereotypes and the sexualization of men nurses’ touch. J Adv Nurs 2002, 40(4):441-448.
• [28]Seymour-Smith S, Wetherell M, Phoenix A: My wife ordered Me to come!’: a discursive analysis of doctors’ and nurses’ accounts of men’s use of general practitioners. J Health Psychol 2002, 7(3):1359-1053.
• [29]Kiss A: Does gender have an influence on the patient-physician communication? J Men’s Health Gend 2004, 1(1):77-82.
• [30]Clarke L: Nursing research: science, visions and telling stories. J Adv Nurs 1995, 21:584-593.
• [31]Chiovitti RF, Piran N: Rigour and grounded theory research. J Adv Nurs 2003, 44(4):427.