Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30544201›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2020

Why do breast cancer survivors decline a couple-based intimacy enhancement intervention trial?

Jennifer Barsky Reese, Kristen A Sorice, Natalie M Oppenheimer, Katherine Clegg Smith, Sharon L Bober, Elissa T Bantug, Sharon C Schwartz, Laura S Porter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jennifer Barsky ReeseCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kristen A SoriceCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Natalie M OppenheimerCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Katherine Clegg SmithDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sharon L BoberDepartment of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Elissa T BantugBreast Cancer Survivorship Program, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sharon C SchwartzSection of Gynecologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Laura S PorterDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Margaret von Mehren · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
Phone-Based Intimacy Enhancement Intervention for Couples facing Breast CancerR21CA191354 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI REESE, JENNIFER BARSKY · 2015 to 2016
$345k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927NCI NIH HHS R21 CA191354
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recruitment challenges hinder behavioral intervention research in cancer survivors. The purpose was to examine the reasons for declining and intervention preferences of study-eligible breast cancer survivors declining a trial of a four-session couple-based Intimacy Enhancement intervention (refusers) and explore whether refusers differed from participants on key characteristics. Partnered, post-treatment breast cancer survivors reporting sexual concerns who were eligible for but declined participation in the intervention trial were approached to complete a standardized 5-min telephone survey assessing reasons for declining and support preferences. Demographic, clinical, and sexual concerns information were collected during screening. Trial participants and refusers were compared on key variables of age, race, hormone therapy use, time since treatment, level of sexual concerns, and recruitment method using t-tests or chi-square tests. Among the 31 women who declined the trial and completed the survey, the most common reasons for declining were time commitment (74%) and partner noninterest (32%). Most (61%) reported that the telephone format played little to no role in their refusal. Eighty-one percent wanted their partners involved in a program addressing sexual concerns. The two most preferred resources were informational websites (45%) and meeting with a professional (26%). Trial participants and refusers did not differ on any key factors examined. Developing intimacy interventions that are very brief, partner-optional, or that use stepped care may bolster uptake. The methods used to examine study-eligible candidates' needs and preferences could be employed in other health populations, thus having broader implications for research design.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsFemaleHumansSexual BehaviorSexual PartnersSurvivorsBreast neoplasmsCouples therapyInterventionsSexuality

Identifiers

PMID30544201
PMCPMC7237544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.