European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society · 2024
Let's talk about sex! Why should healthcare professionals address sexual distress in breast cancer patients and survivors?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huberts Anouk S, Vrancken Peeters Noëlle J M C, Pastoor Hester, Paez Cristina Guerrero, Koppert Linetta B
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Sexual distress impacts the quality of life (QoL) of breast cancer patients but is often overlooked in standard care pathways. This study evaluated the prevalence and factors of sexual distress among Dutch breast cancer patients, compared them to the general population, and explored how sexual distress is discussed in clinical settings from the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).
METHODS: Questionnaires containing the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) and demographic variables were distributed to women with breast cancer. The effect of breast cancer on sexual distress was assessed with a Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze variables associated with FSDS. The Sexuality Attitudes and Beliefs Survey (SABS) was sent to HCPs.
RESULTS: Breast cancer patients reported significantly higher sexual distress compared to a Dutch non-breast cancer cohort, respectively 16.38 (SD 11.81) and 23.35 (SD 11.39). Factors associated with higher sexual distress were psychological comorbidities, the body image scale, and being diagnosed >10 years ago. Sexual distress was not discussed as often as patients needed. Barriers to addressing sexual distress were time constraints, HCPs' confidence in their ability to address sexual distress, and uncertainty about who is responsible for initiation.
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients showed significantly higher sexual distress compared to the Dutch population. However, it was not frequently addressed in the consultation room. While some barriers have been identified, this study highlights the importance of further exploring obstacles to integrating discussions about sexual distress into routine care to improve QoL of breast cancer patients.
METHODS: Questionnaires containing the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) and demographic variables were distributed to women with breast cancer. The effect of breast cancer on sexual distress was assessed with a Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze variables associated with FSDS. The Sexuality Attitudes and Beliefs Survey (SABS) was sent to HCPs.
RESULTS: Breast cancer patients reported significantly higher sexual distress compared to a Dutch non-breast cancer cohort, respectively 16.38 (SD 11.81) and 23.35 (SD 11.39). Factors associated with higher sexual distress were psychological comorbidities, the body image scale, and being diagnosed >10 years ago. Sexual distress was not discussed as often as patients needed. Barriers to addressing sexual distress were time constraints, HCPs' confidence in their ability to address sexual distress, and uncertainty about who is responsible for initiation.
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients showed significantly higher sexual distress compared to the Dutch population. However, it was not frequently addressed in the consultation room. While some barriers have been identified, this study highlights the importance of further exploring obstacles to integrating discussions about sexual distress into routine care to improve QoL of breast cancer patients.