POS0043-HPR DO COPING STRATEGIES, ILLNESS PERCEPTIONS AND RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS CONTRIBUTE TO SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION FOR WOMEN WITH SJÖGREN’S SYNDROME?

Background Women with Sjögren’s syndrome (SS) are more likely to experience vaginal dryness, dyspareunia and reduced sexual function than healthy controls 1 . There is limited data investigating relationships psychosocial influences, such as coping mechanisms, illness perceptions, partners behaviours relationship satisfaction. Objectives To investigate associations between parameters in women SS. Methods Cisgender aged 18+, diagnosed SS, were invited participate a cross-sectional online survey. Ethical approval informed consent obtained. Participants completed the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), EULAR Sjӧgren’s Syndrome Patient Reported (ESSPRI), NRS scale for dryness (0-10), Profile of Fatigue Discomfort (ProFaD), Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ), Brief Illness Perceptions (BIPQ), West-Haven Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI – Part II) Maudsley Marital (MMQ subscale). Associations FSFI outcome measures assessed using Spearman’s correlations. Variables that significantly correlated total score entered into backward stepwise multiple regression. Results The survey was by 98 (M = 48.13, SD 13.26), 70.4% having primary SS (disease duration range 3 348 months); 43.8% premenopausal 48% postmenopausal. Vaginal reported 92.9% participants, dysfunction identified 85.2% (n 69/81) cases (<26.55). who not sexually active previous three-month period 17) excluded from analyses inactivity may cause low which be incorrectly construed dysfunction. Reduced associated increases age, mental fatigue self-blame, rumination catastrophising consequences identity negative partner responses (WHYMPI) dissatisfaction (MMQ). also decreases positive reappraisal perspective personal control solicitous distracting (Table 1). No significant found disease duration, or ESSPRI total. regression indicated (β -.278, p .004), CERQ .322, .003) -.277, .009) related explained 42.0% variance scores (F(3,72) 17.394, < .001). Table 1. r s 95% CI (LB, UB) Age (years) -.270 .015 -.467 -.049 Disease (months) -.030 .793 -.253 .196 Relationship -.180 .119 -.396 .054 VAS -.350 .001 -.533 -.136 -.165 .141 -.376 .062 ProFaD Mental -.294 .008 -.486 -.074 Self-Blame -.264 .017 -.461 -.042 Rumination -.296 .007 -.488 -.077 Positive Reappraisal .469 .000 .273 .628 Perspective .341 .002 .126 .525 Catastrophising -.499 -.651 -.310 BIPQ Consequences -.237 .033 -.438 -.013 Personal Control -.288 .009 -.481 -.068 Identity -.487 -.075 MMQ -.282 .013 -.483 -.054 WHYMPI Negative Responses -.252 .028 -.457 -.021 Solicitous .267 .020 .037 .470 Distracting .311 .006 .085 .506 Note. N 81. shown. Conclusion strategies have better those strategies. Learning an important line approach managing References [1]Priori R, et al. Quality life Sjögren syndrome. J Rheumatol 2015;42(8): 1427-31. Disclosure Interests None declared