ArticlePsycho-oncology2026
Understanding Engagement With a Couple-Based Intimacy Enhancement Intervention for Breast Cancer Survivors: An In-Depth Examination of Recruitment and On-Trial Engagement.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBarriers hinder cancer survivors' participation in and engagement with psychosocial interventions, particularly for trials evaluating dyadic interventions.
aimsWe examined patterns of enrollment (Study 1) and intervention engagement (Study 2) in a trial of a couple-based Intimacy Enhancement (IE) intervention for breast cancer survivors with sexual concerns and their partners.
methodsStudy 1 examined reasons for non-participation and support preferences of study-eligible survivors who declined participation and completed a standardized survey (n = 38) and compared decliners to participants on socio-demographic characteristics and sexual/relationship outcomes. Study 2 characterized participant engagement with IE sessions, home practice completion, and post-intervention IE skills use. More versus less engaged survivors/partners (interventionist-rated) were compared on variables as in Study 1 and on at-home/post-intervention engagement measures using Chi-square or t-tests.
resultsOf 233 study-eligible survivors, 120 enrolled (52%). Lack of partner interest was the most common reason for declining. Compared to participants, study decliners were in longer relationships and more identified as being from a racial minority group. Decliners reported generally low levels of interest in any sexual support. Engagement in IE activities, including session and homework completion, was high among patients and partners. Younger survivor age was associated with lower interventionist-rated in-session engagement.
conclusionsFindings suggest strong overall interest in and engagement with the IE intervention and suggest the importance of understanding how to increase uptake of sexual support to survivors across diverse backgrounds and preferences. The methods used in examining study-eligible candidates' preferences and intervention participants' engagement could have broader relevance for psycho-oncology research design.
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.