Facilitating psychosexual adjustment for women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy: pilot of a novel patient psycho-educational resource.

PURPOSE: This pilot study aimed to obtain feedback on the feasibility, safety and acceptability of a psychosexual rehabilitation booklet developed for women undergoing pelvic radiation therapy (PRT) and to explore women's sexual, informational and supportive care needs post-PRT rehabilitation. METHODS: Twenty women treated with PRT for gynaecological or anorectal cancer within the last 5 years, who had received vaginal dilators, provided feedback on the format, content and utility of the booklet and discussed their post-treatment information needs, via a semi-structured phone interview. Women completed standardized (HADS, IES-R) and study-specific scales to characterize psychological status of the sample and to assess participants' booklet knowledge and feedback, respectively. RESULTS: The booklet was perceived as very helpful, informative and not distressing, providing additional information to that discussed with clinicians. After reading the booklet, women had good understanding of strategies to reduce the sexual impact of PRT. Many women reported that discussion of sexuality was often avoided during consultations, despite them experiencing distressing sexual experiences and difficulties post-PRT. CONCLUSIONS: This novel resource which addresses an important component of post-pelvic radiation care appears acceptable and highly valued. Findings have highlighted a need for sexual health communication training for clinicians who treat this population so that they can initiate conversations about vaginal health and sexual health in an informed and comfortable manner. The impact of the revised booklet on psychosexual and clinical outcomes is being evaluated in a multicentre RCT.

Misconstruing methods and meaning in the General Factor of Personality.

Research has suggested that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) might represent a real and meaningful higher-order factor in the personality hierarchy. However, there are psychometric shortcomings in many of the studies used to support this argument, as well as convincing empirical evidence for alternative explanations of the GFP as methodological rather than meaningful. The current article re-examines the research supporting a substantive GFP by considering and evaluating the evidence presented in a recent volume (Just, 2011). It is concluded that covariation among first-order personality factors is more likely a statistical or methodological artefact than a theoretically meaningful higher-order construct.