ArticleBMJ open2020
Prevalence and predictors of poor sexual well-being over 5 years following treatment for colorectal cancer: results from the ColoREctal Wellbeing (CREW) prospective longitudinal study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Longitudinal quality of life measurement in colorectal cancer survivorship: a scoping review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Review
- 'And don't say everything will be normal!': An international cross-sectional survey on the patients' unmet sexual wellbeing needs after ostomy formation.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Quality of life outcomes in colorectal cancer survivors: insights from an observational study at a tertiary cancer center.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Observational
- Sexual distress among men with cancer - a cross-sectional study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Erectile Dysfunction in Pelvic Cancer Survivors and Current Management Options.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Sexual function remains persistently low in women after treatment for colorectal cancer and anal squamous cell carcinoma.The journal of sexual medicine · 2023Article
- A Prospective Study Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life Following a Multimodal Treatment for Colorectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2023Article
- Factors Associated With Quality of Life Among Colorectal Cancer Patients: Cross-Sectional Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe prevalence and predictors of poor sexual well-being for men and women over 5 years following treatment for colorectal cancer.
designProspective longitudinal study, from presurgery to 5 years postsurgery, with eight assessment points. Logistic regression models predicted sexual well-being from presurgery to 24 months and 24 months to 60 months; time-adjusted then fully adjusted models were constructed at each stage.
settingTwenty-nine hospitals in the UK.
participantsPatients with Dukes' stage A-C, treated with curative intent, aged ≥18 years and able to complete questionnaires were eligible. OUTCOME MEASURES: The dependent variable was the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors sexual function score. Independent variables included sociodemographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics.
resultsSeven hundred and ninety participants provided a sexual well-being score for at least one time point. Thirty-seven per cent of men and 14% of women reported poor sexual well-being at 5 years. Baseline predictors for men at 24 months included having a stoma (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.20) and high levels of depression (OR 2.69/2.01, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.32/1.12 to 3.61); men with high self-efficacy (OR confident 0.33/0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.61/0.24 to 1.00; very confident 0.25/0.42, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49/0.19 to 0.94) and social support (OR 0.52/0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81/0.35 to 0.91) were less likely to report poor sexual well-being. Predictors at 60 months included having a stoma (OR 2.30/2.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.34/1.11 to 6.40) and high levels of depression (OR 5.61/2.58, 95% CI 2.58 to 12.21/0.81 to 8.25); men with high self-efficacy (very confident 0.14, 95% CI 0.047 to 0.44), full social support (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.53) and higher quality of life (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) were less likely to report poor sexual well-being. It was not possible to construct models for women due to low numbers reporting poor sexual well-being.
conclusionsSeveral psychosocial variables were identified as predictors of poor sexual well-being among men. Interventions targeting low self-efficacy may be helpful. More research is needed to understand women's sexual well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.