Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32281174›Full record

ArticlePsycho-oncology2020

Patients' perceived barriers to discussing sexual health with breast cancer healthcare providers.

Lauren A Zimmaro, Stephen J Lepore, Mary Catherine Beach, Jennifer B Reese

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psycho-oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Developing a patient-centered educational video series on sexual health for women with breast cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Lauren A ZimmaroCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9796-3759
Stephen J LeporeCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7370-6280
Mary Catherine BeachGeneral Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jennifer B ReeseCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9341-2407

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Dietmar J Kappes · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
TRAINING PROGRAM IN CANCER RESEARCHT32CA009035 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI CHERNOFF, JONATHAN · 1985 to 2020
$10.5M
NCI NIH HHS 2T32-CA-009035NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927NCI NIH HHS P30CA006927NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe characterized barriers reported by women with breast cancer (BC) regarding clinical discussions of sexual health, clustered women by their endorsement of these barriers, and compared these groups.

methodsBC outpatients (N = 144; M age = 56, 67% White) in a sexual health communication intervention study provided baseline data. Exploratory factor analysis characterized sexual health communication barriers on a standardized measure. Hierarchical cluster analysis detected patient groups with similar response patterns on these factors. ANOVAs, Chi-Square and Fisher's Exact tests compared groups on socio-demographic/medical factors, sexual health communication self-efficacy and outcome expectancies, general clinical self-efficacy, sexual concerns, emotional distress, and discussion about sexual health with an oncology provider.

resultsTwo factors emerged: patients' own beliefs about or perceived inability to discuss sexual health (self-centered barriers), and patients' perceptions of providers' reactions to discussing sexual health (provider-centered barriers); self-centered barriers were endorsed more than provider-centered (P < .001). Three clusters emerged: women who endorsed (a) high self-centered and high provider-centered (n = 19; 13%), (b) high self-centered and low provider-centered (n = 95; 66%), and (c) low self-centered and low provider-centered (n = 30; 21%). Women endorsing more barriers reported lower sexual communication self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and general clinical self-efficacy (P's ≤ .001); no differences in sexual concerns, emotional distress, or discussing sexual health were found.

conclusionsWomen more strongly endorsed self-centered barriers than provider-centered. When grouped according to these barriers, women differed in their confidence and expectations for sexual health communication, regardless of degree of sexual or emotional distress. Interventions are needed to improve both patients' and providers' skills for discussing sexual health.

Indexed as

CommunicationCommunication BarriersPhysician-Patient RelationsSexual HealthAdultBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMedical OncologyMiddle AgedPsychological DistressSelf EfficacySexual Behaviorbreast neoplasmcancercommunicationoncologistsoncologysexual health

Identifiers

PMID32281174
PMCPMC7500072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.