Kathryn E Flynn1, Stacy Tessler Lindau2,3, Li Lin4, Jennifer Barsky Reese5, Diana D Jeffery6, Jeanne Carter7, Shirley R Baron8, Emily Abramsohn2, Kevin P Weinfurt4,9. 1. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. kflynn@mcw.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Medicine-Geriatrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Defense Health Agency, Department of Defense, Falls Church, VA, USA. 7. Departments of Surgery and Psychiatry, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 9. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brief self-assessment of sexual problems in a clinical context has the potential to improve care for patients through the ability to track trends in sexual problems over time and facilitate patient-provider communication about this important topic. However, instruments designed for research are typically too long to be practical in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a single-item self-report clinical screener that would capture common sexual problems and concerns for men and women. DESIGN: We created three candidate screener items, refined them through cognitive interviews, and administered them to a large sample. We compared the prevalence of responses to each item and explored the discrepancies between items. We evaluated the construct validity of the items by comparing them to scores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS® SexFS) measure. PARTICIPANTS: Local patients participated in two rounds of cognitive interviews (n = 7 and n = 11). A probability-based random sample of U.S. adults comprised the item-testing sample (n = 3517). MAIN MEASURES: The items were as follows: 1) a yes/no item on any sexual problems or concerns ("general screener"), 2) a yes/no item on problems experienced for 3 months or more during the past 12 months, with a list of examples ("long list screener"), and 3) an item identical to the long list screener except that examples appeared individually as response options and respondents could check all that applied ("checklist screener"). KEY RESULTS: All of the screeners tested showed evidence for basic validity and had minimal missing data. Percentages of women and men endorsing the screeners were 10 % and 15 % (general); 20 % and 17 % (long list); and 38 % and 30 % (checklist), respectively. Participants who endorsed the screeners had lower function compared to those who did not endorse them. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the checklist screener for its specificity and ability to identify specific problems associated with decreased sexual function.
BACKGROUND: Brief self-assessment of sexual problems in a clinical context has the potential to improve care for patients through the ability to track trends in sexual problems over time and facilitate patient-provider communication about this important topic. However, instruments designed for research are typically too long to be practical in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a single-item self-report clinical screener that would capture common sexual problems and concerns for men and women. DESIGN: We created three candidate screener items, refined them through cognitive interviews, and administered them to a large sample. We compared the prevalence of responses to each item and explored the discrepancies between items. We evaluated the construct validity of the items by comparing them to scores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS® SexFS) measure. PARTICIPANTS: Local patients participated in two rounds of cognitive interviews (n = 7 and n = 11). A probability-based random sample of U.S. adults comprised the item-testing sample (n = 3517). MAIN MEASURES: The items were as follows: 1) a yes/no item on any sexual problems or concerns ("general screener"), 2) a yes/no item on problems experienced for 3 months or more during the past 12 months, with a list of examples ("long list screener"), and 3) an item identical to the long list screener except that examples appeared individually as response options and respondents could check all that applied ("checklist screener"). KEY RESULTS: All of the screeners tested showed evidence for basic validity and had minimal missing data. Percentages of women and men endorsing the screeners were 10 % and 15 % (general); 20 % and 17 % (long list); and 38 % and 30 % (checklist), respectively. Participants who endorsed the screeners had lower function compared to those who did not endorse them. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the checklist screener for its specificity and ability to identify specific problems associated with decreased sexual function.
Authors: Stacy Tessler Lindau; L Philip Schumm; Edward O Laumann; Wendy Levinson; Colm A O'Muircheartaigh; Linda J Waite Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alice K Fortune-Greeley; Kathryn E Flynn; Diana D Jeffery; Megan S Williams; Francis J Keefe; Bryce B Reeve; Gordon B Willis; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Lena Wettergren; Erin E Kent; Sandra A Mitchell; Brad Zebrack; Charles F Lynch; Mara B Rubenstein; Theresa H M Keegan; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Helen M Parsons; Ashley Wilder Smith Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Kristen Sorice; Stephen J Lepore; Mary B Daly; James A Tulsky; Mary Catherine Beach Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-10-04
Authors: Stacy Tessler Lindau; Emily M Abramsohn; Shirley R Baron; Judith Florendo; Hope K Haefner; Anuja Jhingran; Vanessa Kennedy; Mukta K Krane; David M Kushner; Jennifer McComb; Diane F Merritt; Julie E Park; Amy Siston; Margaret Straub; Lauren Streicher Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Lisa A Rubinsak; Mindy S Christianson; Aletha Akers; Jeanne Carter; Andrew M Kaunitz; Sarah M Temkin Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Dane Whicker; Li Lin; Rachel Cusatis; Alan Nyitray; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 5.128