Researchers express that there are several studies delving on the effects of impotence, and some acknowledging the psychosocial and social effects of the condition, but very few giving attention to the feelings of men with the condition and given sildenafil treatment. For such reason, the present work was conducted, emphasizing on the impact of erectile dysfunction in men, in their relationships, and the influence of sildenafil as given treatment. The co-existence of both erectile dysfunction and depression are noted, but the causal relationship is unclear (Seidman & Roose, 2000), and the present work somehow touches on this manner. It is also established that sildenafil has created a media hype upon its release, and was perceived to reach other parts that other drugs cannot reach (Berger, 1998).
The researchers conducted an exploratory qualitative study on the topic. To obtain participants for the study, a random sampling was conducted to 302 new referrals to the clinic who were prescribed with sildenafil 12 months before the study was conducted. They were divided into categories as to successful sildenafil treatment and failed treatment. The basis as to whether the medication was successful or not relied in the judgment of the patients, where successful treatment always meant achieving successful penetrative intercourse, and failure was inability to have an erection adequate for penetration (Tomlinson & Wright, 2004). Potential participants were contacted through the telephone, which yielded 40 men, 20 in each category, to be interviewed. The age of the respondents range from 22-72 years old, with median age of 51.8 years. These figures were comparable to the entire 302 men where the sample was taken, ages ranging from 16-84 years of age, with a median of 59 years. The respondents were assured that their participation in the study would not affect the effects of the treatment. Prior to each interview, a written consent was obtained from the participant. Interviews were usually conducted in a private room of the hospital, at a time convenient for the interviewee. These were audiotaped and lasted up to 45 minutes. Instead of having an outside researcher to conduct the interview, the interviewer was also the same person who prescribed sildenafil. The semistructured interviews allowed for identification and exploration of issues that were brought up by the participants. Qualitative research methods are usually utilized when the study concerns deeper meanings of particular human experiences, and are typically flexible, allowing research procedures to evolve as more observations are gathered (Rubin & Babbie, 2009). In this case where the researchers intend to focus on the feelings of men with erectile dysfunction, the said research method, as used, is deemed appropriate. The sample, only 40 out of 302, could have been a larger amount, however, the researchers were not able to define who were considered “potential participants,” or give more specific criteria besides being new referrals from the clinic prescribed with silfdenafil a year before the study commenced. Informed consent is always essential in any scientific undertaking, which was not failed to be mentioned in the article. The researchers also acknowledged that having