Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32349896›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2020

Communication about Sexual Health in Breast Cancer: What Can We Learn from Patients' Self-Report and Clinic Dialogue?

Jennifer Barsky Reese, Kristen A Sorice, Lauren A Zimmaro, Stephen J Lepore, Mary Catherine Beach

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 5th ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 5).Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Preliminary evaluation of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of an online sexual health educational video series for breast cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer Barsky ReeseCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: Jennifer.Reese@fccc.edu.
Kristen A SoriceCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lauren A ZimmaroCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Stephen J LeporeCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA.
Mary Catherine BeachDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Fox Chase Cancer Center · USJohns Hopkins University · US

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 P30 CA006927NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveResearch assessing clinical communication about sexual health is limited. We compared clinical communication about sexual health across patients' self-reports and coded dialogue in breast cancer outpatients.

methods134 patients had clinic visits audio-recorded and coded for sexual health communication and completed self-report questionnaires immediately after the visit. Associations between the self-report and dialogue were assessed using Phi coefficient. Agreements (present/absent) and discrepancies (omissions, commissions) about discussed topics were classified and discrepancies analyzed for themes.

resultsSexual health was discussed in 61 of 134 patient visits (46%). Associations were significant (p < .01) but differed by topic (φ = .27-.76). 37 women (23%) had ≥ 1 self-report error. Discrepancies were common (19 omissions, 29 commissions). Patients often omitted communication about sexual concerns when such concerns were not problematic, and interpreted non-specific discussions as including specific topics of concern, even when not explicitly stated. Omissions were more common for women with lower education.

conclusionsPatients' reports of whether sexual health communication occurs does not always align with observed dialogue, and may vary by personal relevance of the topic. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There are limitations in determining the prevalence of clinical communication about sexual health through patient self-report. Explaining sexual health terms might enhance shared understanding.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsSexual HealthSexual PartnersAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth CommunicationHumansMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeSelf ReportSexual BehaviorSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast CancerCommunicationDialogue AnalysisSexual Health

Identifiers

PMID32349896
PMCPMC7423724
OpenAlexW3014436564

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.