Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Including partners in discussions of sexual side effects from breast cancer: a qualitative study of survivors, partners, and providers

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

Abstract

Purpose

Ensuring there are clear standards for addressing cancer-related sexual side effects is important. Currently, there are differences in two leading sets of clinical guidelines regarding the inclusion of survivors’ romantic partners into clinical discussions between survivors and their providers about this issue. To help refine guidelines, we examine breast cancer survivor, partner, and oncology provider perspectives about including partners in discussions about cancer-related sexual side effects in a secondary analysis of a broader qualitative study.

Methods

Partnered female breast cancer survivors (N = 29) completed online surveys, and intimate partners of breast cancer survivors (N = 12) and breast oncology providers (N = 8) completed semi-structured interviews. Themes were derived from thematic content analysis.

Results

Among survivors who reported a discussion with their provider, fewer than half indicated their partner had been present, despite most survivors expressing it was — or would have been — helpful to include their partner. Partners also largely indicated being included was or would have been helpful, when welcomed by the survivor. Providers similarly emphasized the importance of survivors’ autonomy in deciding whether to discuss sexual concerns in the presence of a partner.

Conclusions

Partners were infrequently included in conversations about cancer-related sexual side effects, even though survivors, partners, and providers alike expressed value in these discussions occurring with the couple together — when that is the survivor’s preference. Findings suggest future clinical guidelines should emphasize that incorporating partners into clinical discussions about sexual concerns is important for many breast cancer patients. Soliciting and enacting patients’ preferences is essential for truly patient-centered care.

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 upon reasonable request from the authors.

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. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Barbera L, Zwaal C, Elterman D et al (2017) Interventions to address sexual problems in people with cancer. Curr Oncol 24:192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter J, Lacchetti C, Andersen BL et al (2018) Interventions to address sexual problems in people with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline adaptation of Cancer Care Ontario guideline. J Clin Oncol 36:492–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Fiszer C, Dolbeault S, Sultan S, Brédart A (2014) Prevalence, intensity, and predictors of the supportive care needs of women diagnosed with breast cancer: a systematic review. Psychooncology 23:361–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghizzani A, Pirtou L, Bellezza A, Velicogna F (1995) The evaluation of some factors influencing the sexual life of women affected by breast cancer. J Sex Marital Ther 21:57–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bober SL, Varela VS (2012) Sexuality in adult cancer survivors: challenges and intervention. J Clin Oncol 30:3712–3719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  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. 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 

  15. 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 

  16. Shaffer KM, Kennedy E, Glazer JV et al (2021) 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(12):7451–7460

  17. Thorne S (2016) Interpretive description: qualitative research for applied practice. Routledge, New York

  18. Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J (1997) Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health 20:169–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Creswell JW (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  20. Green J, Thorogood N (2013) Qualitative methods for health research. Sage, Los Angeles

  21. Berwick DM (2002) A User’s Manual For the IOM’s ‘quality chasm’ report. Health Aff 21:80–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

  23. 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 

  24. Annon JS (1976) The PLISSIT model: a proposed conceptual scheme for the behavioral treatment of sexual problems. J Sex Education Therapy 2:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. 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 

  27. 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 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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 University of Virginia (UVA) Cancer Center, Cancer Control and Population Sciences (CCPH) health program, and Population Research Pilot Projects award. Dr. Shaffer was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) award numbers UL1TR003015 and KL2TR003016. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA

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

  2. Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA

    Kelly M. Shaffer, Anita H. Clayton, Karen S. Ingersoll & Lee M. Ritterband

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

    Erin Kennedy & Wendy Cohn

  4. Center for Behavioral Health and Technology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA

    Jillian V. Glazer

  5. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jennifer Barsky Reese

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

    Trish A. Millard

  7. 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. Jennifer Barsky Reese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Trish A. Millard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Karen S. Ingersoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lee M. Ritterband
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Shayna Showalter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KS, conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, resources, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition; EK, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing, project administration; JG, data curation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing, project administration; AC, methodology resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition; WC, conceptualization, methodology, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition; JBR, conceptualization, writing—review and editing; TM, conceptualization, writing—review and editing; KI, conceptualization, writing—review and editing; LR, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition; SS, conceptualization, methodology, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition.

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 for publication

N/A

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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 41 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. Including partners in discussions of sexual side effects from breast cancer: a qualitative study of survivors, partners, and providers. Support Care Cancer 30, 4935–4944 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-06917-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-06917-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation