Mia D Austria1, Kathleen Lynch2, Tiffany Le3, Chasity Burrows Walters4, Thomas M Atkinson2, Andrew J Vickers1, Sigrid V Carlsson5. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Patient and Caregiver Engagement, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: carlssos@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome instruments to assess sexual functioning typically assume that patients are heterosexual and have a single sexual partner, thus they may have limited applicability for sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations as well as for nonpartnered individuals or those with multiple partners. AIM: To explore the perceptions of SGM persons regarding the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a commonly used sexual functioning questionnaire. METHODS: We conducted 2 rounds of cognitive interviews with 27 SGM persons with and without a cancer diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers independently coded the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis to identify major themes. OUTCOMES: Themes identified via qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Cognitive debriefing with the participants provided critical insights about the way we ask questions about sexual functioning in the oncology clinic. Three overarching themes arose from the data: (i) Certain aspects of the questionnaire were felt to unnecessarily medicalize sexuality; (ii) FSFI domains were perceived to represent a narrow and heteronormative experience of sexuality focused on penile-vaginal intercourse; (iii) Questionnaire domains emphasizing sexual "performance" were perceived as male-oriented. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Questionnaires such as the FSFI that were developed in research studies with specific eligibility criteria need to be adapted to the broader population seen in clinical practice. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of the study include purposive sampling of SGM persons through LGBTQ networks. Our sample included individuals of different sexual orientations, gender identities, marital status, and cancer histories. However, a limitation is that the the majority of the sample was white and college-educated. Other limitations of the study include the potential sampling bias of self-selected participants with a particular interest in the study questions. CONCLUSION: The findings provide important evidence for the development of a more inclusive sexual function measure, moving away from the traditional heteronormative, cisnormative approach to measuring sexual function. Austria MD, Lynch K, Le T, et al. Sexual and Gender Minority Persons' Perception of the Female Sexual Function Index. J Sex Med 2021;18:2020-2027.
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome instruments to assess sexual functioning typically assume that patients are heterosexual and have a single sexual partner, thus they may have limited applicability for sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations as well as for nonpartnered individuals or those with multiple partners. AIM: To explore the perceptions of SGM persons regarding the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a commonly used sexual functioning questionnaire. METHODS: We conducted 2 rounds of cognitive interviews with 27 SGM persons with and without a cancer diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers independently coded the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis to identify major themes. OUTCOMES: Themes identified via qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Cognitive debriefing with the participants provided critical insights about the way we ask questions about sexual functioning in the oncology clinic. Three overarching themes arose from the data: (i) Certain aspects of the questionnaire were felt to unnecessarily medicalize sexuality; (ii) FSFI domains were perceived to represent a narrow and heteronormative experience of sexuality focused on penile-vaginal intercourse; (iii) Questionnaire domains emphasizing sexual "performance" were perceived as male-oriented. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Questionnaires such as the FSFI that were developed in research studies with specific eligibility criteria need to be adapted to the broader population seen in clinical practice. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of the study include purposive sampling of SGM persons through LGBTQ networks. Our sample included individuals of different sexual orientations, gender identities, marital status, and cancer histories. However, a limitation is that the the majority of the sample was white and college-educated. Other limitations of the study include the potential sampling bias of self-selected participants with a particular interest in the study questions. CONCLUSION: The findings provide important evidence for the development of a more inclusive sexual function measure, moving away from the traditional heteronormative, cisnormative approach to measuring sexual function. Austria MD, Lynch K, Le T, et al. Sexual and Gender Minority Persons' Perception of the Female Sexual Function Index. J Sex Med 2021;18:2020-2027.
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Julian A Sanchez; Steven K Sutton; Susan T Vadaparampil; Giang T Nguyen; B Lee Green; Peter A Kanetsky; Matthew B Schabath Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jennifer L Hay; Thomas M Atkinson; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Tito R Mendoza; Gordon Willis; Lori M Minasian; Steven B Clauser; Andrea Denicoff; Ann O'Mara; Alice Chen; Antonia V Bennett; Diane B Paul; Joshua Gagne; Lauren Rogak; Laura Sit; Vish Viswanath; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Maria Ida Maiorino; Paolo Chiodini; Giuseppe Bellastella; Dario Giugliano; Katherine Esposito Journal: Endocrine Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Kevin P Weinfurt; Li Lin; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Jill M Cyranowski; Carrie B Dombeck; Elizabeth A Hahn; Diana D Jeffery; Richard M Luecht; Susan Magasi; Laura S Porter; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Bryce B Reeve; Rebecca A Shelby; Ashley Wilder Smith; John T Willse; Kathryn E Flynn Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 3.802