Premium
Men in Australia Telephone Survey (MATeS): predictors of men's help‐seeking behaviour for reproductive health disorders
Author(s) -
Holden Carol A,
Jolley Damien J,
McLachlan Robert I,
Pitts Marian,
Cumming Robert,
Wittert Gary,
Handelsman David J,
Kretser David M
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
medical journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.904
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1326-5377
pISSN - 0025-729X
DOI - 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00637.x
Subject(s) - medicine , demography , odds ratio , reproductive health , population , odds , telephone interview , help seeking , multivariate analysis , gerontology , disease , australian population , family medicine , logistic regression , mental health , psychiatry , environmental health , social science , sociology
Objective: To identify sociodemographic factors associated with help‐seeking behaviour for reproductive health disorders in middle‐aged and older Australian men. Design: A cross‐sectional, population‐based, computer‐assisted telephone interview exploring sociodemographic factors and general and reproductive health. Participants and setting: Analysis of data from the Men in Australia Telephone Survey (MATeS) of 5990 Australian men aged 40 years and older interviewed between September and December 2003. Main outcome measures: Self‐reported diagnosis of prostate disease and erectile dysfunction (ED), help‐seeking behaviour (including visiting a doctor, prostate‐specific antigen testing, treatment of prostate disease, speaking to a health professional about ED and treatment of ED). Results: Age was a significant predictor of all help‐seeking behaviour studied, other than treatment for ED. Controlling for all predictor variables, never‐married status predicted a lower likelihood of visiting a doctor (odds ratio [OR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.48–0.97]) or speaking to a health professional about ED (OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.21–0.93]), while divorced/separated status predicted lower likelihood of having a prostate‐specific antigen test (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50–0.79]). Living in a regional or remote area or being from a non‐English‐speaking background predicted lower likelihood of receiving treatment for ED (ORs, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.42–0.92] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24–0.72], respectively), but did not influence screening for prostate disease. Conclusion: Seeking advice or treatment for male reproductive health disorders is predicted by sociodemographic factors specific to different reproductive health problems. As middle‐aged and older men do attend doctors, opportunities exist for health professionals to optimise their consultations by routinely discussing reproductive health with all men, to identify under‐reported male reproductive health disorders.