Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25893421›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2015

Development and Validation of a Single-Item Screener for Self-Reporting Sexual Problems in U.S. Adults.

Kathryn E Flynn, Stacy Tessler Lindau, Li Lin, Jennifer Barsky Reese, Diana D Jeffery, Jeanne Carter, Shirley R Baron, Emily Abramsohn, Kevin P Weinfurt

Registry-linked trialAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07658937 (Improving Sexual and Reproductive Health Communication Between Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Patients and Clinicians), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07658937 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Improving Sexual and Reproductive Health Communication Between Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Patients and Clinicians: ReSPECT Intervention Proof-of-Concept Testing

TypeinterventionalSponsorConnecticut Children's Medical CenterRan2026 to 2029Enrolled30ConditionsHealth-Related Quality-of-Life, Cancer, Health CommunicationArmsReSPECT
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Engaging survivor and oncologist stakeholders to develop a patient-reported outcome assessment to use as a component of survivorship care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Reproductive health care across the lifecourse of the female cancer patient.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Sexual quality of life, body image distress, and psychosocial outcomes in colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kathryn E FlynnCenter for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. kflynn@mcw.edu.
Stacy Tessler LindauDepartment of Obstetrics/Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Li LinDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Jennifer Barsky ReeseCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Diana D JefferyDefense Health Agency, Department of Defense, Falls Church, VA, USA.
Jeanne CarterDepartments of Surgery and Psychiatry, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Shirley R BaronDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Emily AbramsohnDepartment of Obstetrics/Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Kevin P WeinfurtDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Validating and Extending the PROMIS Sexual Function Measure for Clinical ResearchU01AR052186 · NIAMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WEINFURT, KEVIN P · 2004 to 2013
$9.5M
Sexuality, Aging and Heart Disease: Translating from Population to PatientK23AG032870 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI LINDAU, STACY TESSLER · 2009 to 2012
$747k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR052186NIAMS NIH HHS U01AR052186NIA NIH HHS K23 AG032870NIA NIH HHS K23AG032870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrief self-assessment of sexual problems in a clinical context has the potential to improve care for patients through the ability to track trends in sexual problems over time and facilitate patient-provider communication about this important topic. However, instruments designed for research are typically too long to be practical in clinical practice.

objectiveTo develop and validate a single-item self-report clinical screener that would capture common sexual problems and concerns for men and women.

designWe created three candidate screener items, refined them through cognitive interviews, and administered them to a large sample. We compared the prevalence of responses to each item and explored the discrepancies between items. We evaluated the construct validity of the items by comparing them to scores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS® SexFS) measure.

participantsLocal patients participated in two rounds of cognitive interviews (n = 7 and n = 11). A probability-based random sample of U.S. adults comprised the item-testing sample (n = 3517). MAIN MEASURES: The items were as follows: 1) a yes/no item on any sexual problems or concerns ("general screener"), 2) a yes/no item on problems experienced for 3 months or more during the past 12 months, with a list of examples ("long list screener"), and 3) an item identical to the long list screener except that examples appeared individually as response options and respondents could check all that applied ("checklist screener"). KEY

resultsAll of the screeners tested showed evidence for basic validity and had minimal missing data. Percentages of women and men endorsing the screeners were 10 % and 15 % (general); 20 % and 17 % (long list); and 38 % and 30 % (checklist), respectively. Participants who endorsed the screeners had lower function compared to those who did not endorse them.

conclusionsWe recommend the checklist screener for its specificity and ability to identify specific problems associated with decreased sexual function.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChecklistFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSelf ReportSexual Dysfunction, PhysiologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25893421
PMCPMC4579234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.