Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Addressing sexual concerns of female breast cancer survivors and partners: a qualitative study of survivors, partners, and oncology providers about Internet intervention preferences

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Sexual side effects after breast cancer treatment are common and distressing to both survivors and their intimate partners, yet few receive interventions to address cancer-related sexual concerns. To direct intervention development, this qualitative study assessed the perceptions of female breast cancer survivors, intimate partners of breast cancer survivors, and breast cancer oncology providers about how an Internet intervention for couples may address breast cancer-related sexual concerns.

Methods

Survivors (N = 20) responded to online open-ended surveys. Partners (N = 12) and providers (N = 8) completed individual semi-structured interviews. Data were inductively coded using thematic content analysis.

Results

Three primary intervention content areas were identified by the key stakeholder groups: (1) information about and strategies to manage physical and psychological effects of cancer treatment on sexual health, (2) relationship and communication support, and (3) addressing bodily changes and self-image after treatment. Survivors and partners tended to express interest in some individualized intervention private from their partner, although they also emphasized the importance of opening communication about sexual concerns within the couple. Survivors and partners expressed interest in an intervention that addresses changing needs across the cancer trajectory, available from the time of diagnosis and through survivorship.

Conclusion

Internet intervention for couples to address cancer-related sexual concerns, particularly one that provides basic education about treatment side effects and that evolves with couples’ changing needs across the cancer trajectory, was perceived as a valuable addition to breast cancer care by survivors, partners, and providers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data available are upon reasonable request from the authors. Supplementary materials—including interview guides and COREQ checklist—are archived at http://bit.ly/BrCaQual.

Code availability

N/A

References

  1. Seav SM, Dominick SA, Stepanyuk B et al (2015) Management of sexual dysfunction in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Women’s Midlife Health 1:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cella D, Fallowfield LJ (2008) Recognition and management of treatment-related side effects for breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 107:167–180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schover LR (1991) The impact of breast cancer on sexuality, body image, and intimate relationships. CA Cancer J Clinicians 41:112–120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Oberguggenberger A, Martini C, Huber N et al (2017) Self-reported sexual health: Breast cancer survivors compared to women from the general population–an observational study. BMC Cancer 17:599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Panjari M, Bell RJ, Davis SR (2011) Sexual function after breast cancer. J Sex Med 8:294–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Raggio GA, Butryn ML, Arigo D, Mikorski R, Palmer SC (2014) Prevalence and correlates of sexual morbidity in long-term breast cancer survivors. Psychol Health 29:632–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fergus KD, Gray RE (2009) Relationship vulnerabilities during breast cancer: patient and partner perspectives. Psychooncology 18:1311–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ochsenkühn R, Hermelink K, Clayton AH et al (2011) Menopausal status in breast cancer patients with past chemotherapy determines long-term hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Sex Med 8:1486–1494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Reese JB, Porter LS, Casale KE et al (2016) Adapting a couple-based intimacy enhancement intervention to breast cancer: a developmental study. Health Psychol 35:1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Flynn KE, Reese JB, Jeffery DD et al (2012) Patient experiences with communication about sex during and after treatment for cancer. Psychooncology 21:594–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nasiri A, Taleghani F, Irajpour A (2012) Men’s sexual issues after breast cancer in their wives: a qualitative study. Cancer Nurs 35:236–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zahlis EH, Lewis FM (2010) Coming to grips with breast cancer: the spouse’s experience with his wife’s first six months. J Psychosoc Oncol 28:79–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leon-Carlyle M, Schmocker S, Victor JC et al (2015) Prevalence of physiologic sexual dysfunction is high following treatment for rectal cancer: but is it the only thing that matters? Dis Colon Rectum 58:736–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yi JC, Syrjala KL (2009) Sexuality after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cancer J 15:57–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shanis D, Merideth M, Pulanic TK, Savani BN, Battiwalla M, Stratton P (2012) Female long-term survivors after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: evaluation and management. Semin Hematol 49:83–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Henson HK (2002) Breast cancer and sexuality. Sex Disabil 20:261–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ussher JM, Perz J, Gilbert E et al (2013) Talking about sex after cancer: a discourse analytic study of health care professional accounts of sexual communication with patients. Psychol Health 28:1370–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coleman E, Elders J, Satcher D et al (2013) Summit on medical school education in sexual health: report of an expert consultation. J Sex Med 10:924–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ritterband LM, Thorndike FP, Cox DJ, Kovatchev BP, Gonder-Frederick LA (2009) A behavior change model for Internet interventions. Ann Behav Med 38:18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shaffer KM, Tigershtrom A, Badr H, Benvengo S, Hernandez M, Ritterband LM (2020) Dyadic psychosocial eHealth interventions: systematic scoping review. J Med Internet Res 22:e15509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reese JB, Sorice KA, Oppenheimer NM et al (2020) Why do breast cancer survivors decline a couple-based intimacy enhancement intervention trial? Transl Behav Med 10:435–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wootten A, Pillay B, Abbott J-A (2016) Can sexual outcomes be enhanced after cancer using online technology? Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 10:81–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barbera L, Fitch M, Adams L, Doyle C, DasGupta T, Blake J (2011) Improving care for women after gynecological cancer: the development of a sexuality clinic. Menopause 18:1327–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schover LR, Evans RB, von Eschenbach AC (1987) Sexual rehabilitation in a cancer center: diagnosis and outcome in 384 consultations. Arch Sex Behav 16:445–461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor S, Harley C, Ziegler L, Brown J, Velikova G (2011) Interventions for sexual problems following treatment for breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130:711–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Andersen BL, Woods XA, Copeland LJ (1997) Sexual Self-Schema and Sexual Morbidity Among Gynecologic Cancer Survivors. J Consult Clin Psychol 65:221–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Emilee G, Ussher JM, Perz J (2010) Sexuality after breast cancer: a review. Maturitas 66:397–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rowland E, Metcalfe A (2014) A systematic review of men’s experiences of their partner’s mastectomy: coping with altered bodies. Psychooncology 23:963–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Annon JS (1976) The PLISSIT model: A proposed conceptual scheme for the behavioral treatment of sexual problems. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy 2:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Robinson JW, Lounsberry JJ (2010) Communicating about sexuality in cancer care. In: Kissane D, Bultz B, Butow P, Finlay I (eds) Handbook of communication in oncology and palliative care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 409–422

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Park ER, Norris RL, Bober SL (2009) Sexual health communication during cancer care: barriers and recommendations. The Cancer Journal 15:74–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bober SL, Reese JB, Barbera L et al (2016) How to ask and what to do: a guide for clinical inquiry and intervention regarding female sexual health after cancer. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 10:44–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lisy K, Peters MD, Schofield P, Jefford M (2018) Experiences and unmet needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people with cancer care: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Psychooncology 27:1480–1489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yedjou CG, Tchounwou PB, Payton M et al (2017) Assessing the racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer mortality in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14:486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Weinfurt KP, Lin L, Bruner DW et al (2015) Development and initial validation of the PROMIS® sexual function and satisfaction measures version 2.0. J Sex Med 12:1961–1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J et al (2000) The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 26:191–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wiegel M, Meston C, Rosen R (2005) The female sexual function index (FSFI): cross-validation and development of clinical cutoff scores. J Sex Marital Ther 31:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Clayton AH, McGarvey EL, Clavet GJ (1997) The Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ): development, reliability, and validity. Psychopharmacol Bull 33:731

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hendrick SS, Dicke A, Hendrick C (1998) The relationship assessment scale. J Soc Pers Relat 15:137–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are sincerely grateful for the participation of the survivors, partners, and providers in this study, for the support of the UVA Breast Care Center, and for the recruitment assistance of Dora Irvin, LPN.

Funding

This study was funded by a UVA Cancer Center Cancer Control and Population Health Sciences (CCPH) program Population Research Pilot Projects award. Dr. Shaffer was supported in part by the NIH NCATS Award Numbers UL1TR003015 and KL2TR003016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UVA Cancer Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Kelly M. Shaffer, Erin Kennedy, Wendy Cohn, Trish A. Millard, Lee M. Ritterband & Shayna Showalter

  2. Center for Behavioral Health and Technology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, PO Box 801075, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA

    Kelly M. Shaffer, Jillian V. Glazer & Lee M. Ritterband

  3. Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Kelly M. Shaffer, Anita H. Clayton & Lee M. Ritterband

  4. Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Erin Kennedy & Wendy Cohn

  5. Medicine – Hematology/Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Trish A. Millard

  6. Surgery – Surgical Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Shayna Showalter

Authors
  1. Kelly M. Shaffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jillian V. Glazer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anita H. Clayton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wendy Cohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Trish A. Millard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lee M. Ritterband
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Shayna Showalter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Kelly Shaffer, Erin Kennedy, and Jillian Glazer, with input from the remaining authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Kelly Shaffer and all authors contributed substantially to the revision of the manuscript through comments and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly M. Shaffer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was approved as exempt research by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Virginia.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were informed that results would be reported. Data have been anonymized for publication.

Competing interests

Dr. Shaffer discloses funding from NCATS related to this work. Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Glazer, Dr. Cohn, Dr. Millard, and Dr. Showalter report no pertinent conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Clayton reports outside the submitted work grants from Janssen, Relmada Therapeutics, Inc., and Sage Therapeutics; personal fees from Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fabre-Kramer, Ovoca Bio plc, Pure Tech Health, Sage Therapeutics, Takeda/Lundbeck, WCG MedAvante-ProPhase, Ballantine Books/Random House, Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire, Guilford Publications; personal fees and other from S1 Biopharma; and other from Euthymics and Mediflix LLC. Dr. Ritterband reports having a financial and/or business interest in BeHealth Solutions and Pear Therapeutics and is a consultant to Mahana Therapeutics. These companies had no role in preparing this manuscript. The terms of these arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the University of Virginia in accordance with its policies.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 47.4 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shaffer, K.M., Kennedy, E., Glazer, J.V. et al. Addressing sexual concerns of female breast cancer survivors and partners: a qualitative study of survivors, partners, and oncology providers about Internet intervention preferences. Support Care Cancer 29, 7451–7460 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06302-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06302-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation