Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Why do breast cancer survivors decline a couple-based intimacy enhancement intervention trial?
Reese, Jennifer Barsky; Sorice, Kristen A; Oppenheimer, Natalie M; Smith, Katherine Clegg; Bober, Sharon L; Bantug, Elissa T; Schwartz, Sharon C; Porter, Laura S.
Affiliation
  • Reese JB; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Sorice KA; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Oppenheimer NM; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Smith KC; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Bober SL; Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Bantug ET; Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Schwartz SC; Breast Cancer Survivorship Program, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Porter LS; Section of Gynecologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Transl Behav Med ; 10(2): 435-440, 2020 05 20.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30544201
ABSTRACT
Recruitment challenges hinder behavioral intervention research in cancer survivors. The purpose was to examine the reasons for declining and intervention preferences of study-eligible breast cancer survivors declining a trial of a four-session couple-based Intimacy Enhancement intervention (refusers) and explore whether refusers differed from participants on key characteristics. Partnered, post-treatment breast cancer survivors reporting sexual concerns who were eligible for but declined participation in the intervention trial were approached to complete a standardized 5-min telephone survey assessing reasons for declining and support preferences. Demographic, clinical, and sexual concerns information were collected during screening. Trial participants and refusers were compared on key variables of age, race, hormone therapy use, time since treatment, level of sexual concerns, and recruitment method using t-tests or chi-square tests. Among the 31 women who declined the trial and completed the survey, the most common reasons for declining were time commitment (74%) and partner noninterest (32%). Most (61%) reported that the telephone format played little to no role in their refusal. Eighty-one percent wanted their partners involved in a program addressing sexual concerns. The two most preferred resources were informational websites (45%) and meeting with a professional (26%). Trial participants and refusers did not differ on any key factors examined. Developing intimacy interventions that are very brief, partner-optional, or that use stepped care may bolster uptake. The methods used to examine study-eligible candidates' needs and preferences could be employed in other health populations, thus having broader implications for research design.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Breast Neoplasms / Cancer Survivors Limits: Female / Humans Language: En Journal: Transl Behav Med Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Breast Neoplasms / Cancer Survivors Limits: Female / Humans Language: En Journal: Transl Behav Med Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States