Trial reportCancer2026
Efficacy of a sexual quality of life intervention for couples facing metastatic breast cancer: Results of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often report severe, long-standing concerns with their sexual quality of life (QOL), yet interventions for this population are scarce. This study evaluated the efficacy of a couple-based sexual QOL intervention adapted for MBC couples in a randomized controlled trial.
methodsFifty-five female MBC patients reporting sexual concerns and their intimate partners (N = 110 participants) were randomized to Adapted Intimacy Enhancement (AIE), a four-session videoconference intervention providing education and skills training for coping with sexual/intimacy concerns, or Enhanced Care-As-Usual (ECAU; informational booklet). Outcomes (measured at baseline, post-intervention, and 6-month follow-up) included patients' sexual outcomes (sexual function/distress/self-efficacy; primary), patients' psychosocial outcomes (sexual communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress; secondary), and similar partner outcomes (secondary). Mixed linear regression models assessed intervention effects on outcomes at follow-ups; psychosocial outcomes were analyzed using dyadic analyses. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated.
resultsCompared to ECAU, patients in AIE reported greater improvements in overall sexual function (p = .018), desire (p = .007), and sexual distress (p = .046) at 6 months, and in sexual satisfaction at both post-intervention (p = .02) and 6 months (p < .001). Partners in AIE reported greater improvements in sexual distress (p = .006), sexual self-efficacy (p = .008), sexual communication (p = .004), and relationship intimacy (p = .01) at 6 months. Effects were largest for patient sexual satisfaction and partner sexual distress at 6 months.
conclusionsCompared to a detailed informational booklet on sex/intimacy, the couple-based AIE intervention yielded long-term benefits for MBC patients' sexual outcomes and partners' sexual distress and psychosocial outcomes. Future research should identify intervention mediators and optimal dissemination methods.
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.