Jennifer Barsky Reese1, Laura S Porter2, Kristen E Casale1, Elissa T Bantug3, Sharon L Bober4, Sharon C Schwartz5, Katherine Clegg Smith6. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center. 3. Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center. 4. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School. 5. Section of Gynecologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center. 6. Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sexual concerns continue to be poorly addressed for women treated for breast cancer and evidence-based interventions that adequately address these concerns are scarce. The objective of this study was to adapt a telephone-based intimacy enhancement intervention, previously tested in couples facing colorectal cancer, to the needs of women with breast cancer through qualitative focus groups, cognitive interviews, and expert review. METHOD: Three semistructured qualitative focus groups in partnered posttreatment breast cancer survivors (n = 15) reporting sexual concerns were conducted to investigate experiences of breast cancer-related sexual concerns and intervention preferences. Focus group data were coded using the framework approach to qualitative analysis; 8 key themes were identified and used to develop the content and format of the intervention. Feedback from cognitive interviews with study-naïve breast cancer survivors (n = 4) and expert review of materials were also incorporated in finalizing the intervention materials. RESULTS: Qualitative findings centered on the impact of breast cancer and its treatment on women's sexuality and on the intimate relationship, experiences of helpful and unhelpful coping methods, and explicit intervention preferences. Focus group data were particularly helpful in identifying the scope of educational topics and in determining how to structure intervention skills practice (e.g., intimacy-related communication) to be optimally relevant and helpful for both women and their partners. Cognitive interview feedback helped refine intervention materials. CONCLUSION: An intimacy enhancement intervention was adapted for women with breast cancer and their partners. This intervention offers a promising, potentially disseminable approach to addressing breast cancer-related sexual concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Sexual concerns continue to be poorly addressed for women treated for breast cancer and evidence-based interventions that adequately address these concerns are scarce. The objective of this study was to adapt a telephone-based intimacy enhancement intervention, previously tested in couples facing colorectal cancer, to the needs of women with breast cancer through qualitative focus groups, cognitive interviews, and expert review. METHOD: Three semistructured qualitative focus groups in partnered posttreatment breast cancer survivors (n = 15) reporting sexual concerns were conducted to investigate experiences of breast cancer-related sexual concerns and intervention preferences. Focus group data were coded using the framework approach to qualitative analysis; 8 key themes were identified and used to develop the content and format of the intervention. Feedback from cognitive interviews with study-naïve breast cancer survivors (n = 4) and expert review of materials were also incorporated in finalizing the intervention materials. RESULTS: Qualitative findings centered on the impact of breast cancer and its treatment on women's sexuality and on the intimate relationship, experiences of helpful and unhelpful coping methods, and explicit intervention preferences. Focus group data were particularly helpful in identifying the scope of educational topics and in determining how to structure intervention skills practice (e.g., intimacy-related communication) to be optimally relevant and helpful for both women and their partners. Cognitive interview feedback helped refine intervention materials. CONCLUSION: An intimacy enhancement intervention was adapted for women with breast cancer and their partners. This intervention offers a promising, potentially disseminable approach to addressing breast cancer-related sexual concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Diana D Jeffery; Francis J Keefe; Laura S Porter; Rebecca A Shelby; Maria R Fawzy; Tracy K Gosselin; Bryce B Reeve; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Emily K Hill; Stacey Sandbo; Emily Abramsohn; Jennifer Makelarski; Kristen Wroblewski; Emily R Wenrich; Stacy McCoy; Sarah M Temkin; S Diane Yamada; Stacy T Lindau Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Dominique Frechette; Lise Paquet; Shailendra Verma; Mark Clemons; Paul Wheatley-Price; Stan Z Gertler; Xinni Song; Nadine Graham; Susan Dent Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Susanna B Hummel; Jacques J D M van Lankveld; Hester S A Oldenburg; Daniela E E Hahn; Eva Broomans; Neil K Aaronson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Kristen A Sorice; Lauren A Zimmaro; Stephen J Lepore; Mary Catherine Beach Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-04-04
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: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Kristen A Sorice; Natalie M Oppenheimer; Katherine Clegg Smith; Sharon L Bober; Elissa T Bantug; Sharon C Schwartz; Laura S Porter Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Mary Catherine Beach; Katherine Clegg Smith; Elissa T Bantug; Kristen E Casale; Laura S Porter; Sharon L Bober; James A Tulsky; Mary B Daly; Stephen J Lepore Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kelly M Shaffer; Erin Kennedy; Jillian V Glazer; Anita H Clayton; Wendy Cohn; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Trish A Millard; Karen S Ingersoll; Lee M Ritterband; Shayna Showalter Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Kelly M Shaffer; Erin Kennedy; Jillian V Glazer; Anita H Clayton; Wendy Cohn; Trish A Millard; Lee M Ritterband; Shayna Showalter Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jennifer B Reese; Kristen A Sorice; Whitney Pollard; Elizabeth Handorf; Mary C Beach; Mary B Daly; Laura S Porter; James A Tulsky; Stephen J Lepore Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Hansje P Smeele; Rachel C H Dijkstra; Merel L Kimman; René R W J van der Hulst; Stefania M H Tuinder Journal: Patient Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.481