Addressing Sexual Concerns in Breast Cancer: Patient Intervention Study

Two items assessed patients' self-efficacy (confidence) for communicating with their breast cancer clinician about sexual health concerns in terms of either talking (item 1) or asking (item 2) about sexual health. Response options used an 11-point scale (0=not at all confident/not at all to 10=extremely confident/very much). Mean scores across the two items were used, ranging from 0-10. Higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy.

Two items assessed patients' self-efficacy (confidence) for communicating with their breast cancer clinician about sexual health concerns in terms of either talking (item 1) or asking (item 2) about sexual health. Response options used an 11-point scale (0=not at all confident/not at all to 10=extremely confident/very much). Mean scores across the two items were used, ranging from 0-10. Higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy.

Five items assessed the belief that discussing sexual health with her breast cancer clinician would lead to positive outcomes (e.g., "find a solution to a problem"). Response options used an 11-point scale (0=not at all to 10=very much). Mean scores across the five items were used, ranging from 0-10. Higher scores indicate higher expectancies for positive outcomes.

Five items assessed the belief that discussing sexual health with her breast cancer clinician would lead to positive outcomes (e.g., "find a solution to a problem"). Response options used an 11-point scale (0=not at all to 10=very much). Mean scores across the five items were used, ranging from 0-10. Higher scores indicate higher expectancies for positive outcomes.

As coded from clinic visit audio, the number of patients who ask at least one question about sexual health.

As coded from clinic visit audio, the number of patients who raise the topic of sexual health during their encounter (out of encounters where a sexual health discussion occurred).

Recruitment rates, as measured by percentage of patients enrolled (i.e., baselined) out of eligible patients approached for the study.

Retention rates, as measured by percentage of patients who remain on study for 2-week follow-up assessment.

Retention rates, as measured by percentage of patients who remain on study for 2-month follow-up assessment.

Acceptability of intervention, as measured through the item "Overall, how satisfied were you with this program?". Responses options include Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Dissatisfied, and Very Dissatisfied. Responses of "satisfied" or "very satisfied" indicate acceptability. Number of patients reporting acceptability and number of patients not reporting acceptability are presented.

Sexual activity was measured by a single item asking (yes/no) whether the participant had any kind of sexual activity in the past 30 days.

Sexual function was assessed using the Lubrication, Vaginal Discomfort, Satisfaction, and Interest domain scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sexual Function and Satisfaction scale (PROMIS SexFS) Brief Profile Version 2.0. Scores are converted to a T-score metric where a score of 50 equates to the mean of the U.S. population of sexually active adults (SD=10). Higher scores for all domains except Vaginal Discomfort signify better function.

Patients' self-efficacy for communicating with provider generally, as measured through the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions Scale (PEPPI-5). The PEPPI-5 is a five-item scale that measures patient confidence in communicating with providers. Response options are on a scale from 1 (Not at All Confident) to 5 (Very Confident) and are summed for a total self-efficacy score (Range: 5-25). Higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy.

Patient barriers to communication about sexual health, as measured through a 13-item scale. Scale items cover potential reasons a patient might not want to discuss sexual health concerns with her provider (e.g., "I might become embarrassed"). Items are scored on a 1-5 scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Disagree. A total barrier score will be taken from this scale (Range: 13-65). Higher scores indicate more perceived barriers to communication.

Patients self-reported anxiety, as measured through anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale (HADS). The anxiety subscale consists of 7 items that are scored from 0 to 3. Summed scores range from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety.

Patients self-reported depression, as measured through depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale (HADS). The depression subscale consists of 7 items that are scored from 0 to 3. Summed scores range from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating higher levels of depression.

Quality of life, as measured through the Abbreviated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer (FACT-B) total score. The FACT-B contains 23 items about physical, functional, and emotional well-being in the context of breast cancer. Scale items are scored from 0 to 4. Summed scores run from 0 to 92, with higher scores indicating higher quality of life.

Patients' self-reported self-efficacy for communication about treatment side effects with their breast cancer provider. The items about treatment side effects consist of 2 items within a larger 6-item scale which ask the patient how confident she is in talking to her provider about treatment side effects and asking her provider about treatment side effects. Response options range from 0 (not at all confident) to 10 (extremely confident). Mean scores will be reported.

Patients' self-reported self-efficacy for communication about treatment side effects with their breast cancer provider. The items about treatment side effects consist of 2 items within a larger 6-item scale which ask the patient how confident she is in talking to her provider about treatment side effects and asking her provider about treatment side effects. Response options range from 0 (not at all confident) to 10 (extremely confident). Mean scores will be reported.

Patients' self-reported self-efficacy for communication about menopausal health with their breast cancer provider. The items about menopausal health consist of 2 items within a larger 6-item scale which ask the patient how confident she is in talking to her provider about menopausal health and asking her provider about menopausal health. Response options range from 0 (not at all confident) to 10 (extremely confident). Mean scores will be reported.

Patients' self-reported self-efficacy for communication about menopausal health with their breast cancer provider. The items about menopausal health consist of 2 items within a larger 6-item scale which ask the patient how confident she is in talking to her provider about menopausal health and asking her provider about menopausal health. Response options range from 0 (not at all confident) to 10 (extremely confident). Mean scores will be reported.

Five items assessed the belief that discussing treatment side effects with her breast cancer clinician would lead to positive outcomes (e.g., "find a solution to a problem"). Response options used an 11-point scale (0=not at all to 10=very much). Mean scores across the five items were used, ranging from 0-10. Higher scores indicate higher expectancies for positive outcomes.

Five items assessed the belief that discussing treatment side effects with her breast cancer clinician would lead to positive outcomes (e.g., "find a solution to a problem"). Response options used an 11-point scale (0=not at all to 10=very much). Mean scores across the five items were used, ranging from 0-10. Higher scores indicate higher expectancies for positive outcomes.

Five items assessed the belief that discussing menopausal health with her breast cancer clinician would lead to positive outcomes (e.g., "find a solution to a problem"). Response options used an 11-point scale (0=not at all to 10=very much). Mean scores across the five items were used, ranging from 0-10. Higher scores indicate higher expectancies for positive outcomes.

Five items assessed the belief that discussing menopausal health with her breast cancer clinician would lead to positive outcomes (e.g., "find a solution to a problem"). Response options used an 11-point scale (0=not at all to 10=very much). Mean scores across the five items were used, ranging from 0-10. Higher scores indicate higher expectancies for positive outcomes.