Citations

AbstractThis manuscript presents a conceptual model—the Sexual Health and Integrative Pleasure (SHIP) Model—for the clinical assessment and intervention of sexual health concerns. The model was developed by a group of couple/marital family therapy and psychologists who specialize in the treatment of sexual problems. The model consists of five philosophical foundations (systems framework, intersectionality, biopsychosocial model, lifespan approach, and empiricism) and five core therapeutic components (sexual literacy, sexual adaptation and resilience, relational intimacy, pleasure‐oriented positive sexuality, and multidisciplinary care). We define each foundation and component, and compare and contrast the SHIP model with other existing sexual health models. Finally, we demonstrate how the SHIP model was used to provide individual and couple therapy with a cis/heterosexual couple in a university‐based sexual health clinic and make recommendations for additional clinical applications of the model.

Objective This qualitative study sought to learn from patients with cancer -- in their own words -- about anxiety associated with medical testing. Methods Patients with cancer or a history of cancer were recruited from an oncology clinic. After oral consent, each was interviewed in person. A semi-structured interview guide was used to help focus the interviews. Interviews were then recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with rigorous qualitative methods. Results Twenty patients are the focus of this report, which highlights 2 main themes from the data. The first is that anxiety related to medical testing is a real entity. Although not all patients experienced it, those who did described it as such (“I was a little apprehensive.” “It’s the anticipation.” “I don’t think it bothers me until I get near the time for testing.”). The second theme focused on coping. Patients offered insight on how to cope (“So I just deal with it and work.” “And don’t let myself sink into a pity pot ….” “See your scan as a tool instead of … instead of um … a death sentence, I suppose.”) Conclusion In patients with cancer, the anxiety from medical testing is real, could perhaps be mitigated by sharing coping methods from patient to patient, and merits further study.

PURPOSE New technology might pose problems for older patients with cancer. This study sought to understand how a trial in older patients with cancer (Alliance A171603) was successful in capturing electronic patient-reported data. METHODS Study personnel were invited via e-mail to participate in semistructured phone interviews, which were audio-recorded and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS Twenty-four study personnel from the 10 sites were interviewed; three themes emerged. The first was that successful patient-reported electronic data capture shifted work toward patients and toward study personnel at the beginning of the study. One interviewee explained, “I mean it kind of lost all advantages…by being extremely laborious.” Study personnel described how they ensured electronic devices were charged, wireless internet access was up and running, and login codes were available. The second theme was related to the first and dealt with data filtering. Study personnel described high involvement in data gathering; for example, one interviewee described, “I answered on the iPad, whatever they said. They didn't even want to use it at all.” A third theme dealt with advantages of electronic data entry, such as prompt data availability at study completion. Surprisingly, some remarks described how electronic devices brought people together, “Some of the patients, you know, it just gave them a chance to kinda talk about, you know, what was going on.” CONCLUSION High rates of capture of patient-reported electronic data were viewed favorably but occurred in exchange for increased effort from patients and study personnel and in exchange for data that were not always patient-reported in the strictest sense.

Objective: This study sought to understand the patients’ perspective of what contributes to an absence of discussions of sexual orientation (SO), gender identity (GI), and sexual health in cancer care. Methods: Patients were recruited from oncology, gynecology, and a gender transition clinic to participate in semistructured interviews, which were analyzed with qualitative methods. Results: A total of 25 patients were interviewed, shedding light on 2 themes. The first was that these conversations are important but infrequent. One patient explained, “…. we know people who have had sex changes…[they] would have appreciated that question.” In response to whether sexual health was ever brought up, one patient responded, “No doctor ever has.” Patients described unaddressed issues: “There have been times, you know, we’ve wondered if it was okay to make love.” The second theme consisted of 4 pragmatic, patient-provided points to facilitate discussions: (1) implementation of a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being comfortable) to first gauge patients’ comfort in talking about SO, GI, and sexual health; (2) having the health-care provider explore the topic again over-time; (3) making sure the health-care provider is comfortable, as such comfort appears to enhance the patient’s comfort (“I have a doctor here, a female doctor, who just matter of fact will ask if I get erections and so on because of the medication she’s giving me);” and (4) eliminating euphemisms (one patient stated, “I don’t know what you mean by ‘sexual health’.”). Conclusion: Oncology health-care providers have a unique opportunity and responsibility to address SO, GI, and sexual health.

Background: Although national organizations advocate that health-care providers ask patients about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status—to learn, for example, about side effects of treatment and to understand patients’ social support—these conversations often do not occur. This study explored health-care providers’ reasons for having/not having these conversations. Methods: This single-institution study recruited health-care providers from medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and gynecology. Face-to-face interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. Results: Three main themes emerged: (1) patient-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing sexual health and sexual and gender minority status (“So I think just the holistic viewpoint is important”); (2) health-care provider–centric reasons for discussing/not discussing these issues (“That’s going to take more time to talk about and to deal with…” or “I was raised orthodox, so this is not something we talk about…”; and (3) reasons that appeared to straddle both of the above themes (eg, acknowledgment of the sometimes taboo nature of these topics). Conclusion: Although many health-care providers favor talking with patients with cancer about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status, limited time, personal reluctance, and the taboo nature of these topics appear at times to hamper the initiation of these conversations.

End of life is difficult for all patients but sexual and gender minorities (SGM) are prone to isolation and loneliness, especially if their SGM status is unknown or unaccepted. In oncology clinics, where goals of care discussions about end of life are integral and frequent, querying patients about their SGM status and sexual health is of particular importance. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently released a position statement that called for greater focus on SGM populations with the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating disparities in cancer care within this group. An important first step in addressing such disparities is learning how best to train cancer health-care providers to ask patients about their SGM status and about sexual health in general. This article summarizes the mandate for understanding cancer issues in SGM populations and the dearth of cancer-related data within this group. This article also describes an ongoing 3-part study intended to build a mini curriculum with the goal of helping cancer health-care providers to ask patients with cancer about SGM status and to ask all patients with cancer about sexual health issues. The results of this ongoing study could potentially improve end-of-life care for subgroups of patients.