Objective: to compare the level of knowledge about genital prolapse in patients who came to specialized therapeutic and diagnostic centers for the treatment of prolapse in Vienna and Moscow. Subjects and methods. Vienna Group 1 included 118 German-speaking patients with symptoms of genital prolapse who had visited the Urogynecology Polyclinic, Medical University of Vienna; Moscow Group 2 consisted of 105 Russian-speaking patients of the Center for Treatment of Pelvic Floor Diseases, Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The diagnosis of genital prolapse was verified in both groups of patients during their examination. The investigation used questionnaire surveys. Results. This investigation revealed no significant differences between the patients of the examined groups from Vienna and Moscow in the level of knowledge of genital prolapse. Vienna Group 1 patients had significantly more experience in doing exercises to strengthen their pelvic floor muscles. Moscow Group 2 patients were more aware of mesh prostheses used in the surgical treatment of genital prolapse. The patients of both of the Vienna group and the Moscow one preferred information on their disease to be obtained from gynecologists (72 and 82%, respectively; p > 0.05). Moreover, the Moscow Group patients experienced significantly greater need for information about their disease than did the Vienna Group patients. Conclusion. Taking into account that an expert’s opinion is an important factor that determines a female patient’s choice of one or another treatment option, the physician should avoid an authoritarian approach to his/her relationship with the female patient, giving her detailed information about all known treatments so that she could consciously select the optimal treatment procedure. To give more information on prolapse in mass media and the Internet could contribute to a better understanding of the pattern of prolapse, to the need for an early visit to an obstetrician/gynecologist, and to an informed decision made by patients in both Austria and Russia to choose a surgical treatment. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.