Skip to main content

Table 2 Result of the perceived residential environment quality indicators

From: The relationship between four types of premature ejaculation patients and the quality of residential environment

 

With PE complaint

Control group

      

Inventory

(n = 346)

(n = 153)

P -value

LPE

APE

VPE

SPE

P -value

Architectural/urban Planning Features:

 Architectural and Town-planning Spaces

44.30 ± 12.38

40.46 ± 16.21

 < .05

45.36 ± 12.54

43.02 ± 12.37c

47.08 ± 11.85b

45.00 ± 13.13

 < .05

 Organization of Accessibility and Roads

26.53 ± 8.06

27.30 ± 8.07

.32

28.21 ± 9.33

26.01 ± 7.59

27.50 ± 8.50

25.71 ± 9.09

.32

 Green Spaces

18.60 ± 6.24

20.69 ± 5.71

 < .001

21.86 ± 5.82b, c

18.29 ± 5.75a

18.25 ± 7.13a

18.86 ± 7.11

 < .05

Sociorelational Aspects:

 People and Social Relations

23.82 ± 6.58

22.65 ± 5.55

.05

26.52 ± 5.06

23.64 ± 6.41

23.01 ± 7.10

25.39 ± 7.19

.06

Functional Aspects:

 Welfare Services

17.86 ± 9.23

18.12 ± 8.59

.77

21.00 ± 9.53c

18.90 ± 9.47c

14.00 ± 7.53a, b

18.33 ± 8.42

 < .0001

 Cultural–recreational Services

24.74 ± 13.13

23.07 ± 11.66

.18

22.14 ± 11.01

25.07 ± 13.37

25.00 ± 13.58

23.81 ± 11.61

.71

 Commercial Services

20.82 ± 8.20

22.90 ± 7.03

 < .01

22.71 ± 6.60d

20.35 ± 8.30d

13.21 ± 7.67d

15.43 ± 8.39a, b, c

 < .001

 Transportation Services

14.23 ± 6.84

13.46 ± 6.08

.23

15.00 ± 6.94

13.99 ± 6.78

13.99 ± 6.98

16.67 ± 6.77

.34

Contextual Aspects:

 Pace of Life

30.27 ± 15.07

29.55 ± 13.32

.61

38.50 ± 13.88b

28.64 ± 14.63a

31.95 ± 15.71

29.33 ± 15.29

 < .05

 Environmental Health

19.12 ± 6.76

18.90 ± 6.16

.73

23.75 ± 6.13b, c, d

19.63 ± 6.69a, c

16.83 ± 6.44a, b

16.83 ± 5.60a

 < .0001

 Maintenance and Care

18.75 ± 5.84

19.32 ± 5.57

.31

18.67 ± 4.02d

19.40 ± 5.86c, d

15.89 ± 5.08b, d

23.67 ± 5.68a, b, c

 < .0001

  1. PREQIs Perceived Residential Environment Quality Indicators, PE premature ejaculation, LPE lifelong PE, APE acquired PE, VPE variable PE, SPE subjective PE
  2. Data are presented as mean ± SD or as percentages (%)
  3. Differences between men with and without PE were assessed by independent t-test as appropriate
  4. Difference among 4 PE syndromes was assessed by one-way analysis of variance
  5. p-value: differences between men with and without PE
  6. aSignificant difference compared with LPE
  7. bSignificant difference compared with APE
  8. cSignificant difference compared with VPE
  9. dSignificant difference compared with SPE