Women with Type 1 Diabetes have a 2.10 times higher risk of female sexual dysfunction compared to age-matched controls

Photo by isens usa / Unsplash

Endocrine pathology Published May 29, 2026 Medically reviewed May 29, 2026 Study authors: Banerjee Mainak, Maisnam Indira, Mukhopadhyay Pradip, Ghosh Sujoy PubMed ↗ DOI ↗ By Dr. Amelia Tan, PhD · Internal Medicine & Chronic Disease

Key Takeaway

Note higher female sexual dysfunction risk in women with Type 1 Diabetes versus age-matched controls.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the prevalence and risk of female sexual dysfunction (FSD) in women with Type 1 Diabetes. The analysis included 2476 participants across multiple studies. The pooled prevalence of FSD in adults with Type 1 Diabetes was 37% (95% CI: 30%, 43%). When using a standard FSFI cut-off of less than or equal to 26.5, the prevalence was 34% (95% CI: 26%, 41%).

The risk of FSD in women with Type 1 Diabetes versus age-matched controls was higher, with an adjusted Risk ratio of 2.10 (95% CI: 1.30, 3.39; p = 0.002). The incidence of FSD in Type 1 Diabetes versus Type 2 Diabetes was also higher, with a p-interaction value of less than 0.01. Heterogeneity was noted in the pooled estimates.

The authors identified limitations including the frequent exclusion of older populations and the failure to compare diabetes subtypes in certain analyses. Comprehensive care strategies that address both the physiological and psychological aspects of Type 1 Diabetes are warranted to improve sexual health and overall well-being in affected women.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis

EvidenceLevel 1

PublishedMay 2026

PMID42209931

View Original Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND: Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is an under-appreciated complication. Despite its profound impact on female health, including reduced quality of life and psychological distress, it remains underrepresented in major diabetes guidelines. Current data synthesis is limited, often excluding older populations or failing to compare diabetes subtypes. We aimed to collate the prevalence of FSD in T1DM, pool the risk of FSD in T1DM compared to controls, compare the risk in T1DM vs. T2DM and to investigate the impact of different variables on these effects. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify cross-sectional/cohort studies including T1DM participants. Proportion of women with FSD in T1DM versus age-matched control/T2DM population (if reported), and population characteristics were extracted. RESULTS: The pooled analysis of 18 studies (N = 2476) indicated FSD prevalence of 37% in adults with T1DM (95% CI: 30%, 43%; I = 89%; random-effects model). Analysis restricted to studies (n = 12) using standard FSFI cut-off ≤ 26.5 confirmed the summary estimate as 34% (95% CI: 26%, 41%; I = 89%). Trim and fill analysis for publication bias found higher FSD risk in T1DM versus age-matched controls (N = 10, adjusted Risk ratio 2.10; 95% CI: 1.30, 3.39; p = 0.002; I = 76%). The higher incidence of FSD in T1DM versus T2DM on subgroup analysis (p-interaction < 0.01) appeared to be influenced by diabetes duration (p < 0.01, R = 70%). Depression and diabetes control indicators were among most consistent predictors of FSD, whereas continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion had a protective role. CONCLUSIONS: FSD is prevalent in approximately one-third of women with T1DM, with a higher risk compared to those with T2DM, likely due to earlier onset and longer diabetes duration. Comprehensive care strategies that address both the physiological and psychological aspects of T1DM are warranted to improve sexual health and overall well-being in affected women.