ArticleSexual medicine2025
Virtual versus in-person sexual rehabilitation for prostate cancer survivors: a retrospective cohort study comparing the Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (PCRC) and the True North Sexual Health and Rehabilitation eClinic (SHAReClinic).
Article in Sexual medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sexual dysfunction is a common and distressing consequence of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, yet few healthcare institutions offer comprehensive, systematic care, limiting equitable access. Virtual models may improve accessibility and efficiency without sacrificing effectiveness. Aim: To assess whether outcomes in the virtual Sexual Health and Rehabilitation eClinic (SHAReClinic) were comparable to those in the in-person Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (PCRC) in improving sexual health outcomes for PCa survivors. Methods: A retrospective cohort chart review was conducted on PCa patients enrolled in either the PCRC or SHAReClinic between September 2017 and August 2018, with data collected 12 months post-treatment. Clinic assignment was based on standard care pathways. Sexual health outcomes were measured using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), Sexual Distress Scale (SDS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSIS), and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). Pro-erectile medication usage was also analyzed. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were SHIM and SDS scores. Secondary outcomes included MSIS, EPIC-26 scores, and pro-erectile medication use as an indicator for adherence and ongoing sexual activity. Results: Among 98 PCa patients (55 PCRC, 43 SHAReClinic), no significant differences were found in SHIM and SDS scores. While partnered PCRC participants reported significantly higher intimacy on the MSIS compared to partnered SHAReClinic participants ( Clinical Implications: SHAReClinic yields comparable outcomes to PCRC and provides an effective, resource-efficient alternative to in-person sexual rehabilitation for PCa patients, particularly in settings with limited accessibility or resources. Strengths and Limitations: This study provides a comprehensive assessment of sexual health outcomes; however, the small sample size limits generalizability. In addition, there was a significant imbalance in treatment modality, with radiation patients represented only in the SHAReClinic cohort. Further research in larger, more diverse populations with longer follow-up is needed to confirm these findings and better understand intimacy differences. Conclusion: SHAReClinic demonstrates outcomes comparable to PCRC in managing sexual dysfunction in PCa patients, offering a viable and accessible option for sexual rehabilitation.
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.