Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37058163›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023

Experiences of sexual well-being interventions in males affected by genitourinary cancers and their partners: an integrative systematic review.

Kathryn Schubach, Theo Niyonsenga, Murray Turner, Catherine Paterson

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Kathryn SchubachFaculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce ACT, Australia. Kathryn.Schubach@uni.canberra.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2792-6834
Theo NiyonsengaFaculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce ACT, Australia.
Murray TurnerFaculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce ACT, Australia.
Catherine PatersonFaculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce ACT, Australia.
University of Canberra · AU

Funding

Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group Research Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSexual well-being has been identified as an unmet supportive care need among many individuals with genitourinary (GU) cancers. Little is known about the experiences of using sexual well-being interventions among men and their partners.

methodsThis review was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and followed a systematic review protocol. Data extraction and methodological quality appraisal were performed, and a narrative synthesis was conducted.

resultsA total of 21 publications (reporting on 18 studies) were included: six randomised control trials, seven cross-sectional studies, three qualitative studies, and five mixed methods studies. Sexual well-being interventions comprised medical/pharmacological and psychological support, including counselling and group discussion facilitation. The interventions were delivered using various modes: face-to-face, web-based/online, or telephone. Several themes emerged and included broadly: (1) communication with patient/partner and healthcare professionals, (2) educational and informational needs, and (3) timing and/or delivery of the interventions.

conclusionSexual well-being concerns for men and their partners were evident from diagnosis and into survivorship. Participants benefited from interventions but many articulated difficulties with initiating the topic due to embarrassment and limited access to interventions in cancer services. Noteworthy, all studies were only representative of men diagnosed with prostate cancer, underscoring a significant gap in other GU cancer patient groups where sexual dysfunction is a prominent consequence of treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This systematic review provides valuable new insights to inform future models of sexual well-being recovery interventions for patients and partners with prostate cancer, but further research is urgently needed in other GU cancer populations.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsSexual Dysfunction, PhysiologicalCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansMaleSexual BehaviorSexual PartnersGenitourinary cancersInterventionLived experienceSexual well-beingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37058163
PMCPMC10104925
OpenAlexW4365483009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.