Jennifer Barsky Reese1, Kristen A Sorice2, Lauren A Zimmaro2, Stephen J Lepore3, Mary Catherine Beach4. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: Jennifer.Reese@fccc.edu. 2. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research assessing clinical communication about sexual health is limited. We compared clinical communication about sexual health across patients' self-reports and coded dialogue in breast cancer outpatients. METHODS: 134 patients had clinic visits audio-recorded and coded for sexual health communication and completed self-report questionnaires immediately after the visit. Associations between the self-report and dialogue were assessed using Phi coefficient. Agreements (present/absent) and discrepancies (omissions, commissions) about discussed topics were classified and discrepancies analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Sexual health was discussed in 61 of 134 patient visits (46%). Associations were significant (p < .01) but differed by topic (φ = .27-.76). 37 women (23%) had ≥ 1 self-report error. Discrepancies were common (19 omissions, 29 commissions). Patients often omitted communication about sexual concerns when such concerns were not problematic, and interpreted non-specific discussions as including specific topics of concern, even when not explicitly stated. Omissions were more common for women with lower education. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' reports of whether sexual health communication occurs does not always align with observed dialogue, and may vary by personal relevance of the topic. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There are limitations in determining the prevalence of clinical communication about sexual health through patient self-report. Explaining sexual health terms might enhance shared understanding.
OBJECTIVE: Research assessing clinical communication about sexual health is limited. We compared clinical communication about sexual health across patients' self-reports and coded dialogue in breast cancer outpatients. METHODS: 134 patients had clinic visits audio-recorded and coded for sexual health communication and completed self-report questionnaires immediately after the visit. Associations between the self-report and dialogue were assessed using Phi coefficient. Agreements (present/absent) and discrepancies (omissions, commissions) about discussed topics were classified and discrepancies analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Sexual health was discussed in 61 of 134 patient visits (46%). Associations were significant (p < .01) but differed by topic (φ = .27-.76). 37 women (23%) had ≥ 1 self-report error. Discrepancies were common (19 omissions, 29 commissions). Patients often omitted communication about sexual concerns when such concerns were not problematic, and interpreted non-specific discussions as including specific topics of concern, even when not explicitly stated. Omissions were more common for women with lower education. CONCLUSIONS:Patients' reports of whether sexual health communication occurs does not always align with observed dialogue, and may vary by personal relevance of the topic. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There are limitations in determining the prevalence of clinical communication about sexual health through patient self-report. Explaining sexual health terms might enhance shared understanding.
Authors: Jeanne Carter; Christina Lacchetti; Barbara L Andersen; Debra L Barton; Sage Bolte; Shari Damast; Michael A Diefenbach; Katherine DuHamel; Judith Florendo; Patricia A Ganz; Shari Goldfarb; Sigrun Hallmeyer; David M Kushner; Julia H Rowland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susanna B Hummel; Daniela E E Hahn; Jacques J D M van Lankveld; Hester S A Oldenburg; Eva Broomans; Neil K Aaronson Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Jennifer S Gass; Michaela Onstad; Sarah Pesek; Kristin Rojas; Sara Fogarty; Ashley Stuckey; Christina Raker; Don S Dizon Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Thierry Almont; Fadila Farsi; Ivan Krakowski; Rabih El Osta; Pierre Bondil; Éric Huyghe Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Susan M Seav; Sally A Dominick; Boris Stepanyuk; Jessica R Gorman; Diana T Chingos; Jennifer L Ehren; Michael L Krychman; H Irene Su Journal: Womens Midlife Health Date: 2015-11-02