FCCC LOGO Faculty Publications
Reese JB , Sorice KA , Oppenheimer NM , Smith KC , Bober SL , Bantug ET , Schwartz SC , Porter LS
Why do breast cancer survivors decline a couple-based intimacy enhancement intervention trial?
Transl Behav Med. 2020 May 20;10(2) :435-440
PMID: 30544201    PMCID: PMC7237544    URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30544201
Back to previous list
Abstract
Recruitment challenges hinder behavioral intervention research in cancer survivors. The purpose was to examine the reasons for declining and intervention preferences of study-eligible breast cancer survivors declining a trial of a four-session couple-based Intimacy Enhancement intervention (refusers) and explore whether refusers differed from participants on key characteristics. Partnered, post-treatment breast cancer survivors reporting sexual concerns who were eligible for but declined participation in the intervention trial were approached to complete a standardized 5-min telephone survey assessing reasons for declining and support preferences. Demographic, clinical, and sexual concerns information were collected during screening. Trial participants and refusers were compared on key variables of age, race, hormone therapy use, time since treatment, level of sexual concerns, and recruitment method using t-tests or chi-square tests. Among the 31 women who declined the trial and completed the survey, the most common reasons for declining were time commitment (74%) and partner noninterest (32%). Most (61%) reported that the telephone format played little to no role in their refusal. Eighty-one percent wanted their partners involved in a program addressing sexual concerns. The two most preferred resources were informational websites (45%) and meeting with a professional (26%). Trial participants and refusers did not differ on any key factors examined. Developing intimacy interventions that are very brief, partner-optional, or that use stepped care may bolster uptake. The methods used to examine study-eligible candidates' needs and preferences could be employed in other health populations, thus having broader implications for research design.
Notes
1613-9860 Reese, Jennifer Barsky Sorice, Kristen A Oppenheimer, Natalie M Smith, Katherine Clegg Bober, Sharon L Bantug, Elissa T Schwartz, Sharon C Porter, Laura S Journal Article R21 CA191354/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ P30 CA006927/CA/NCI NIH HHS/ England Transl Behav Med. 2018 Dec 13. pii: 5244082. doi: 10.1093/tbm/iby129.