Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38231322›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Feasibility and effectiveness of communication tools for addressing intimacy and sexuality in patients with cancer: a systematic review.

Susanne A M Arends, Carlijn E van Rossum, Corien M Eeltink, Jantien E Robertus, Linda J Schoonmade, Anneke L Francke, Irene P Jongerden

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Breast cancer survivor's sexual health unmet supportive care needs: a mixed-methods study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Susanne A M ArendsDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. s.a.arends@amsterdamumc.nl.
Carlijn E van RossumDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Corien M EeltinkOncology Daycare Center, Dijklander Hospital, Hoorn, the Netherlands.
Jantien E RobertusDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Linda J SchoonmadeMedical Library, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Anneke L FranckeDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Irene P JongerdenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients diagnosed with cancer might experience changes in intimacy and sexuality due to the illness itself, treatment, or psychological and social factors. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) often feel reluctant to discuss these changes. This study aimed to provide an overview of the feasibility and effectiveness of communication tools that support communication regarding changes in intimacy or sexuality among patients with cancer.

methodsThis is a systematic review. Databases are PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception to June 2023. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess included studies. Data were summarized in data charting forms.

resultsIn total 35 studies were included, published between 2001 and 2023. Most had a quantitative design and moderate methodological quality. In 11 studies, the PLISSIT model (Permission, Limited Information, Specific Suggestions, Intensive Therapy) was used. Tools were integrated in counselling sessions or training programmes for individual patients, couples, groups of patients, or HCPs. All tools were considered feasible by patients or HCPs. Twenty studies reported significant improvement in sexual functioning, quality of life, quality of care or combined outcomes.

conclusionTools to support communication about changes in intimacy and sexuality among patients with cancer seem feasible and effective. The most commonly used tool, the PLISSIT model, proved to be feasible for HCPs and to have a positive effect on patients' and partners' sexual functioning and quality of life. Giving attention to changes in intimacy and sexuality seems to be important in itself, regardless of the communication tool or approach used.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeCommunicationFeasibility StudiesHumansSexualityCommunicationIntimacyOncologyQuality of careQuality of lifeSexuality

Identifiers

PMID38231322
PMCPMC10794301

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.