MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415394119 · doi:10.2196/75743

A Sexual Health Self-Management Intervention (Psychosexual Educational Partners Program) for Couples With a History of Breast and Gynecological Cancer: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4415394119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noël Arring, Jennifer Barsky Reese, Carolyn K. Lafferty, Debra L. Barton, Jeanne Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Reproductive healthPublic healthSexual behaviorHuman sexualityMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Women with breast or gynecological cancer and their intimate partners often face sexual problems in their relationships. Accessing care for sexual health problems is challenging for several reasons (eg, limited trained health care providers and privacy concerns), making self-management approaches highly promising. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the feasibility of the Psychosexual Educational Partners Program (PEPP), a 6-week sexual health self-management intervention for women treated for breast or gynecological cancer and their intimate partners. METHODS: A mixed methods single-arm, repeated measures design was used for this study. An attrition rate of ≤25% was considered feasible. Intervention experiences were assessed via interviews, and preliminary effects on the Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale, relationship quality measured by the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and sexual health measured by PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction version 2.0 were explored quantitatively. RESULTS: In total, 7 (77%) of the 9 couples completed the study through week 6 and provided both pre- and poststudy data, resulting in an attrition rate of 22% (2/9), which met the feasibility benchmark for attrition of 25% or less. The following two themes emerged: (1) PEPP helped us start difficult conversations and impacted emotional and physical intimacy. The intervention adherence was 85%. Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale scores improved with a mean change score of 6.64 (SD 9.65) and a Cohen d of 0.69. Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores declined slightly, with a mean change score of -0.93 (SD 3.41) and a Cohen d of 0.27. PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction version 2.0 scores showed small improvements for women on desire, with a mean change score of 2.36 (SD 6.24) and a Cohen d of 0.38. Similarly, for women, the satisfaction mean change score was 2.20 (SD 8.22) and a Cohen d of 0.27. For intimate partners, a small effect was found for desire, but in this instance, desire decreased with a mean change score of -1.57 (SD 6.09) and a Cohen d of 0.26. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support PEPP as a feasible intervention for improving sexual communication. If proven effective in a randomized controlled trial, it has the potential to address the critical gap in supportive care among female cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05070299; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05070299.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.434 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→